Hacker News Reader

Comment by Crake | Hacker News Reader

Interesting how you define millions of the global population entirely by their race.

>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]

View on HN

>white Americans had nothing to do with slavery

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.

> If they lived in America, they did.

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.

It's interesting the way these people never try to apply this sort of "logic" to any other situation. Probably because original sin was first popularized by the Catholic Church, and outside of white guilt and religion (where cognitive dissonance keeps people from realizing the inconsistencies), the concept would obviously be considered laughable at best and ragingly discriminatory at worst.

> The fact that simply by virtue of the state of being white, they were immune to being enslaved within a culture of slavery

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade

What is also overlooked is that the crew members of the slave ships were also themselves kidnapped via press-ganging. This was one of the social pressures that brought an end to the trade in the UK. More and more young men were being kidnapped from port towns to serve on ships and eventually the residents began to organise protest. Wilberforce acted as agent between the towns to give the protest support, orchestration and communication with London.

Stop making generalizations. Plenty of white people immigrated to the US in the 20th century. Still more didn't live in slave states and had little or nothing to do with the slave economy.

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.

"the first slave owner in America was actually a rich black man."

Oh, that's another 'but but but' excuse I forgot, thanks.

So, it's okay to enslave people if you're black?

Statistically speaking, there were probably hundreds of jewish people killed by other jewish people in 1930s Germany.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com