Same principle with 'well, African kingdoms sold us the slaves in the first place', it shifts the focus away from them and their ancestors.
>Because it lets white Americans...[shift] the focus away from them and their ancestors.
Not every white American had ancestors that owned slaves. In fact, most white Americans had nothing to do with slavery--much like today, only the top 1.5% (1) or so of Americans enjoyed any of the benefits stereotypically ascribed to "white people." Poor white people were left to scrounge for low income jobs and educational funds, much as they are today.
Blaming all whites for slavery is much like blaming all Muslims for 9/11. From the past to the present, only the rich have benefited from slaves--as can be seen by the fact that the first slave owner in America was actually a rich black man. (2)
1. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Unite...]
2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_%28colonist%29]
If they lived in America, they did. It affected the the prices of the goods they purchased and affected the price their labor could bring. It affected who they voted for, and years later where they would live. The fact that simply by virtue of the state of being white, they were immune to being enslaved within a culture of slavery affected their relationships to each other and to free black men.
>only the top 1.5% (1) or so of Americans enjoyed any of the benefits stereotypically ascribed to "white people."
Bullshit. If you can get a cab and a black man can't, you're enjoying "benefits stereotypically ascribed to 'white people.'" If a job application is turned down because a name sounds black, you're enjoying "benefits stereotypically ascribed to 'white people.'" Not recognizing that is just a sense of entitlement.
>Blaming all whites for slavery is much like blaming all Muslims for 9/11.
Muslims didn't get to vote (and take up arms against each other) to support 9/11, thousands of times in thousands of contexts over hundreds of years, and they didn't get the economic boost that comes from a large proportion of the population existing to serve.
White people were slaves, too. Both in the Americas and elsewhere. In many places, they were treated more harshly and considered less valuable than African slaves.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgo...
>If you can get a cab
If you're poor, you aren't going to be taking a cab no matter what color your skin is.
>Muslims didn't get to...thousands of times in thousands of contexts over hundreds of years...get the economic boost that comes from a large proportion of the population existing to serve.
"During the 8th and 9th centuries of the Fatimid Caliphate, most of the slaves were Europeans (called Saqaliba) captured along European coasts and during wars.[2] Historians estimate that between 650 and 1900, 10 to 18 million peoples were enslaved by Arab slave traders and taken from Africa across the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara desert.[3]
Unlike the trans-Atlantic slave trade to the New World, Arabs supplied African slaves to the Arab world, which at its peak stretched over three continents from the Atlantic to the Far East."
If you want to condemn white people for slavery, you're going to have to condemn everyone else for it, too.
My ancestors spent the 19th century being exploited by the British Empire in Ireland. Nobody in my family had a thing to do with slavery, and there are millions like me.
I think that is the point. Many (maybe most? I don't know) did not. Only a quarter of my family tree has people living in America before ~1930.
Did they, being white people in a still racist society, benefit from not being black in the 1930s? Sure, of course they did. They didn't have anything to do with American slavery though.
Oh, that's another 'but but but' excuse I forgot, thanks.
My ancestors first set foot in America in 1930. I do happen to be white though, so I'm curious as to whether you think I'm included in the people responsible for slavery. Or do you think it's only white people whose ancestors were in America more than 149 years ago? I'm just curious if you truly believe people are guilty by racial association or only by ancestral association.
What you are is a beneficiary of it, even if you came over on a boat last year. Just as if you had migrated to apartheid South Africa from Ireland in the 80s.
-Exodus 12:43-44
Jews held slaves and are thus the beneficiaries of slavery. Using your mindset, Jews must be maligned as an entire people for all eternity for the past sins of slavery. Isn't that mindset just another name for defamation, though? If antisemitism is a danger to the Jewish people - requiring the countervailing of an "Anti Defamation League" - why wouldn't tarring all American Anglos as the beneficiaries of slavery be a similar danger to America's founding stock? Why is defamation bad for some and good for others?
How am I a beneficiary of something that was outlawed in this country 149 years ago when I have only been alive a small fraction of that time and my ancestors have only been in this country for 84 years?
You make this extraordinary claim without providing extraordinary evidence - or in fact, any evidence. How is what you say true possible? The only way I can imagine is that your logical argument is:
1. Slave owners had an advantage over slaves
2. Descendants of slave owners had an advantage of descendants of slaves
3. An additional 5-6 generations of descendants of slave owners continued to have an advantage over 5-6 generations of descendants of slaves
4. All descendants of slave owners (regardless of how many generations removed they are) are racists that give advantages to whites
5. Therefore, any new immigrants to America instantly inherit these advantages
Is that it? If not, explain how your extraordinary claim is possible.