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.

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.

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?

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!

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you said:

"Now being factually correct is a bad thing, apparently. Too bad for Northam that he is better informed than his critics. It's one thing to have the blind leading the blind, but now the blind want to lead the sighted."


Did you think that his critics aren't made up of many black people? Of course, it's your prerogative to decide to educate them about what the facts really are, but I don't know that it's a good idea to suggest that if they're criticizing Northam, they're blind, since he's the one in the know.

Look, you are obviously white and trying to speak for black people. I think that is offensive. I'll leave it to black people to describe their feelings about it. I will note that skin color, cultural heritage, and other factors add to perspective and provide an important contribution to analyzing history. However, perspective does not replace facts. Once again, I was not responding to black people, white people, or purple polka-dotted people. I was responding to black text on a light blue background. That black text on a light blue background was criticizing Northam and suggesting he had things wrong when he had things correct. Is there any reason that you are repeatedly posting about how black people are offended -- while not black yourself -- rather than simply discussing the actual subject of the discussion?

Posters here offer their thoughts on behalf of other groups all the time (immigrants, unborn babies, Jews, Muslims, Christians, victims of sexual assault); not just when talking about an issue which directly impacts them. How is this offensive?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fascinating. “Mansplaining” and “whitesplaining” all rolled into one.

I assume that instead of learning history, you prefer ignorance and making up stupid words. You would make a great Trump supporter. MAGA.

Black people haven't responded well to Northam's use of "indentured servant." But carry on telling why they should feel otherwise.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:how was "Anthony" on that ship? Was he a willing conscript? Was he sentenced to indentureship by a judge? Was his name even "Anthony"? I doubt the answer to any of those questions is "Yes"
"Anthony" was a CAPTIVE, not a volunteer or criminal, which makes him 100% different from an indentured servant

I'm discussing Anthony's (a name he chose himself) status in Virginia. He may well have been a slave while on the Dutch ship. But, when he landed in Virginia, slavery didn't exist in the way that we know it. If you would take time to read the article to which I have twice linked, it says he was recorded in the census. He was listed as a "servant", not as a slave. Maybe the term "indentured servant" is not a perfect description either since that often involves some sort of agreement to enter into servitude and, clearly, Anthony wouldn't have had that option. At the same time, within a few years he had become free and a land owner.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you said:

"Now being factually correct is a bad thing, apparently. Too bad for Northam that he is better informed than his critics. It's one thing to have the blind leading the blind, but now the blind want to lead the sighted."


Did you think that his critics aren't made up of many black people? Of course, it's your prerogative to decide to educate them about what the facts really are, but I don't know that it's a good idea to suggest that if they're criticizing Northam, they're blind, since he's the one in the know.

Look, you are obviously white and trying to speak for black people. I think that is offensive. I'll leave it to black people to describe their feelings about it. I will note that skin color, cultural heritage, and other factors add to perspective and provide an important contribution to analyzing history. However, perspective does not replace facts. Once again, I was not responding to black people, white people, or purple polka-dotted people. I was responding to black text on a light blue background. That black text on a light blue background was criticizing Northam and suggesting he had things wrong when he had things correct. Is there any reason that you are repeatedly posting about how black people are offended -- while not black yourself -- rather than simply discussing the actual subject of the discussion?

Anonymous wrote:how was "Anthony" on that ship? Was he a willing conscript? Was he sentenced to indentureship by a judge? Was his name even "Anthony"? I doubt the answer to any of those questions is "Yes"
"Anthony" was a CAPTIVE, not a volunteer or criminal, which makes him 100% different from an indentured servant

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fascinating. “Mansplaining” and “whitesplaining” all rolled into one.

I assume that instead of learning history, you prefer ignorance and making up stupid words. You would make a great Trump supporter. MAGA.

Black people haven't responded well to Northam's use of "indentured servant." But carry on telling why they should feel otherwise.

I'm responding to a quote in black text on a light blue background. That's the only color to which I'm talking. Anyone is welcome to feel however the want to feel. But facts are facts. From today's Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/in-his-first-televised-interview-virginia-gov-northam-vows-im-not-going-anywhere/2019/02/10/4c725e0c-2d46-11e9-8ad3-9a5b113ecd3c_story.html

"The first Africans brought to Virginia were captured in Angola and brought in a slave ship, but Virginia did not have a formal legal system for slavery in 1619. There appears to be some ambiguity over their legal status, with some still forced to work for life while others had a path to freedom, according to the National Park Service. "

BTW, are you black yourself or just a self-appointed spokesperson for African-Americans?

When you said:

"Now being factually correct is a bad thing, apparently. Too bad for Northam that he is better informed than his critics. It's one thing to have the blind leading the blind, but now the blind want to lead the sighted."


Did you think that his critics aren't made up of many black people? Of course, it's your prerogative to decide to educate them about what the facts really are, but I don't know that it's a good idea to suggest that if they're criticizing Northam, they're blind, since he's the one in the know.

Anonymous wrote:When you said:

"Now being factually correct is a bad thing, apparently. Too bad for Northam that he is better informed than his critics. It's one thing to have the blind leading the blind, but now the blind want to lead the sighted."


Did you think that his critics aren't made up of many black people? Of course, it's your prerogative to decide to educate them about what the facts really are, but I don't know that it's a good idea to suggest that if they're criticizing Northam, they're blind, since he's the one in the know.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fascinating. “Mansplaining” and “whitesplaining” all rolled into one.

same thought process as when people describe Sally Hemmings as a "mistress " to Jefferson, when she was a slave