Ralph Northam yearbook page shows men in blackface and KKK robe

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, you just offered further support for my belief that anyone who accuses others of "splaining" something is an idiot.

[Anonymous]

It’s just really, really frustrating to watch how frequently you call OTHER people out for being racists/xenophobic/etc. but the moment someone says...you know, Jeff, your “hot takes” are pretty problematic and offensive to a lot of people as well...you go on the defensive. I’m a white liberal myself, but this arrogant, “I know all the answers” savior complex is a great example of why POC don’t trust white people.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, you just offered further support for my belief that anyone who accuses others of "splaining" something is an idiot.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Khanyi_Maz/status/1092722360359313408

Here’s a good passage for you to read!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, you just offered further support for my belief that anyone who accuses others of "splaining" something is an idiot.

Yikes. So POC who use this are idiots? Round and round and round we go again.

[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

If you read the previous link, you would see that the exchange of money would have been for their transport and not for ownership of the person. It wasn't until 1705 that Africans were legally considered to be property. Do you have a link that shows they were logged into the plantation ledgers as such?

[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


If you read the previous link, you would see that the exchange of money would have been for their transport and not for ownership of the person. It wasn't until 1705 that Africans were legally considered to be property. Do you have a link that shows they were logged into the plantation ledgers as such?

And this is borne out by the fact that they were treated like indentured servants inasmuch as they worked and were granted freedom (at least in the very early cases cited).

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:It’s just really, really frustrating to watch how frequently you call OTHER people out for being racists/xenophobic/etc. but the moment someone says...you know, Jeff, your “hot takes” are pretty problematic and offensive to a lot of people as well...you go on the defensive. I’m a white liberal myself, but this arrogant, “I know all the answers” savior complex is a great example of why POC don’t trust white people.

What's frustrating to me is that you have't disputed any points I've made. You just called me names and said I should shut up because I'm white. If you think I have a fact wrong, just point that out and provide something to support your contention. I've linked to two or three different articles to support what I've said. If you think those sources are problematic, explain their shortcomings. I'd be happy to listen to a person of color, but as far as I know, none of posted on this topic. Instead I just have white people calling me names.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No, you just offered further support for my belief that anyone who accuses others of "splaining" something is an idiot.

Yikes. So POC who use this are idiots? Round and round and round we go again.

Since you are so into people of color speaking for themselves, why don't you start letting them do that? Funny that you accused me of having a "savior complex". I don't think I've ever encountered a clearer case of projection. You are the self-appointed POC-defender on this thread who purports to speak for them.

[Anonymous]

C'mon! Where all the black folks at?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:C'mon! Where all the black folks at?

They aren’t here because they don’t care as much as all the freakiing out Democrats looking to quickly remove anything or anyone that makes their side look bad.

[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

If you read the previous link, you would see that the exchange of money would have been for their transport and not for ownership of the person. It wasn't until 1705 that Africans were legally considered to be property. Do you have a link that shows they were logged into the plantation ledgers as such?

https://ids.si.edu/ids/dynamic?id=NMAAHC-2010_1_316_001&max=&iframe=true&width=85%25&height=85%25&container.padding=0&container.fullpage=1, no but here's a deed of sale

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:C'mon! Where all the black folks at?

They aren’t here because they don’t care as much as all the freakiing out Democrats looking to quickly remove anything or anyone that makes their side look bad.

I know a lot of Dems IRL (bubble, echo chamber, whatever) and none think Northam should resign, and didn’t even before the Fairfax stuff. Are we disappointed? Yes.

It’s really looking like he won’t resign and since there is nothing to charge him with it will probably fade away. He’s term limited anyway.

[Anonymous]

Your document looks like 1685 so not 1619.

Do you have it transcribed so it would be easier to read?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

If you read the previous link, you would see that the exchange of money would have been for their transport and not for ownership of the person. It wasn't until 1705 that Africans were legally considered to be property. Do you have a link that shows they were logged into the plantation ledgers as such?

https://ids.si.edu/ids/dynamic?id=NMAAHC-2010_1_316_001&max=&iframe=true&width=85%25&height=85%25&container.padding=0&container.fullpage=1, no but here's a deed of sale

That's dated 1685.

[Anonymous]

I know a lot of Dems IRL (bubble, echo chamber, whatever) and none think Northam should resign, and didn’t even before the Fairfax stuff. Are we disappointed? Yes.

It’s really looking like he won’t resign and since there is nothing to charge him with it will probably fade away. He’s term limited anyway.

+1 Same experience with Dem friends and they were calling and texting Northam telling him not to resign before the Fairfax news came out.