Black People Owning Slaves

**lonewolf** · 03-18-2015, 10:29 AM

This should be fun to watch...if any one responds. Or, if anyone responds that she does not have on ignore.

LOL Is anyone left, except Blu?

**Wahalla** · 03-18-2015, 10:35 AM

We talked about it at high school history class.In General Paper we were given an essay to write on this subject. Garvey i believe discussed it in at least one speech......! And it is occasionally discussed on the radio. I heard Perkins mention it in discussion.. When the issue of reparations came up it is discussed..(i heard it discussed on That a Rap on RJR few months back) and yes we learnt about it...and if you learnt Caribbean history there is mention of. Examine the leaders Post Boukman of the Haitian revolution this issue is quite prominent issue.. And it is mentioned in the great door stopper by CLR James Black Jacobins. If you listen to Jamaican radio program a hell of a lot more stuff is discussed than black canadian oomans who cyan fine husband......

JA Rogers wrote about it. It is mentioned in the seminal works on West Indian History by Eric Williams ...."From Columbus to Castro" and Capitalism and Slavery .. In fact that was the basis for the Eric Williams thesis that slavery was about economics nto race....

if you watched the offshoot of the Cosby show "Different world...Whitley discovers her ancestors owned slaves...

Head of the Class with Tyson ex wife.. that issue was discussed.. When Tysons wife character discovered that she was declined from Hemmings and Jefferson... And the wasp guy discovers he was only a seacond generation american... The hippy teacher i seem to recall mentions that Afro American own slaves....

so your enlightenment is not a community wide issue.. it is you own ignorance... and that of Kanada.

**Wahalla** · 03-18-2015, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by lonewolf View Post

This should be fun to watch...if any one responds. Or, if anyone responds that she does not have on ignore.

LOL Is anyone left, except Blu?

u are not on ignore as well Wolfie ????

**lonewolf** · 03-18-2015, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Wahalla View Post

u are not on ignore as well Wolfie ????

LOL Most definitely! I wear it as a badge of honor.

so your enlightenment is not a community wide issue.. it is you own ignorance... and that of Kanada.

No, I'm well aware of the facts, it has not been a very highly accepted subject in past discussions. I was involved in discussion in the past and was called racist for mentioning same. (reparations not warranted)

We actually had a wealthy black land barron on the eastern shore of the state of Md (My state) that had black slaves and white endentured servants...what a stir that probably created way back when...or maybe not?

From Slave to Slave Owner: The Life of Robert Pearle of Maryland

By Mary Clement Jeske, PhD.

Published in Maryland Historical Magazine, Spring 2008.

During his unusually long life, Robert Pearle (c. 1685-1765), a free mulatto who had been "born of a negroe Slave" in Calvert County, Maryland, achieved a level of success truly remarkable for the time and place in which he lived. "Manumitted by his late master's Will" with his wife and eldest son in 1720, Pearle established himself as a carpenter and began a rise to prosperity that would eclipse that of most men in the eighteenth-century Chesapeake, black or white. Pearle probably never lost his identity as a former slave and even though not free until age thirty-five, he nevertheless attained a level of economic success that placed him among the ranks of the wealthiest white planters in Maryland during the colonial era. The evidence and measure of that achievement - the fourteen slaves enumerated in Pearle's will - testify to just how far he had traveled - from slave to slave owner - during his life.1

No probate inventory survives to provide a detailed analysis of Pearle's personal property, but his fourteen chattels were perhaps worth as much as £700, the value of which - exclusive of his other property - would have placed Pearle among the top 5 to 10 percent of all inventoried Chesapeake decedents during the colonial era.2 Pearle did not own any land when he died, choosing instead to live on the 200-acre tract on Carrollton Manor in Frederick County that he had rented from the Carroll family for more than two decades. Nevertheless, Pearle had acquired a level of wealth that placed him among the top ranks - though not at the very pinnacle - of Chesapeake wealth holders.

Several factors seem to have contributed to Robert Pearle's success. First, while enslaved, Pearle had acquired a valuable skill - carpentry - that allowed him to find employment as a free man and probably provided the foundation for his eventual prosperity.3 In addition, he lived an extraordinarily long life by eighteenth century standards, dying at age eighty, years that allowed him time to accumulate property despite his long period of bondage. Most importantly, Pearle enjoyed the support of some members of the white ruling elite, beginning with his master, Richard Marsham (by c. 1640-1713), the wealthy Prince George's County land and slave holder who gave Pearle his freedom.4 After Marsham's death Pearle continued to enjoy the patronage of some powerful whites, which proved critical to maintaining his rights and to his eventual success in a world where whites controlled all access to power and most blacks were slaves. Pearle was able to convert his unique advantages into economic success, which, once attained, perhaps exerted an equal or even greater influence than his race.

Robert Pearle was born about 1685 and grew to maturity in the early eighteenth-century Chesapeake, simultaneously with the emergence of a slave-based plantation economy that would shape and define his world. His was a very different world from the Chesapeake of the previous century, when white indentured servants outnumbered slaves by as many as five to one and blacks, both slave and free, comprised only a tiny part of the population - about 6 percent of the total in 1670. White servants and black slaves worked together in the same fields, usually alongside their masters, on small agricultural units, lived under the same roof with their owners, played together, ran away together, sometimes enjoyed intimate sexual relationships, and occasionally married. Though most blacks were slaves, slavery was not yet legally codified, race and slavery were not synonymous and race relations more fluid. Before the 1680s the majority of slaves in the Chesapeake came not directly from Africa, but had spent time in the Caribbean or other parts of the New World or along the Atlantic coast. Because this "charter generation" of slaves had acquired an understanding of European languages and cultures, they quickly adapted to life in the Chesapeake. They either spoke or soon learned English, became Christians, and used the legal system to their advantage. Often granted the opportunity to work independently, they developed their own economy, allowing some to accumulate the resources to purchase their freedom. Though difficult, it was possible for some blacks to work their way out of slavery. Very few became wealthy or acquired land, but nevertheless generally enjoyed a modest level of prosperity.5

During the last quarter of the seventeenth century, however, Chesapeake economy and society underwent a sweeping transformation that would completely alter the system of plantation slavery by the time Robert Pearle came of age. The seventeenth-century world characterized by small planters, white indentured servants, and racial fluidity would become a closed slave society dominated by two extremes: large planters who consolidated control over the land, courts, and economy at one end of the spectrum and an enslaved black labor force at the other. In that society, slavery became the primary labor system, slave holders the ruling class, and race the basis of slavery. White servitude declined, while the importation of slaves, now directly from Africa, greatly expanded. Whereas the total black population numbered perhaps no more than two thousand in 1670, planters imported another two thousand during the 1680s alone, double that number in the 1690s, and eight thousand during the first decade of the eighteenth century. Unlike the charter generation, the majority of these slaves, who by 1700 outnumbered white servants, came directly from Africa. Lacking any familiarity with European culture, they Africanized Chesapeake slavery with their foreign dress, music, religion, material culture, and languages. At the same time, the conditions under which slaves labored declined. Longer work days, harsher labor regimes, physical isolation, increased physical coercion, and less freedom to move about or labor independently now characterized the new plantation system. Opportunities to escape slavery diminished or disappeared altogether, while the rights of free blacks, whose very existence undermined the rational of race-based slavery, declined.6

Free people of African descent did not entirely disappear from the Chesapeake, but they shrank to an insignificant, marginalized segment of the population. According to census figures compiled in 1755, people of African descent, designated as either "black" or "mulatto," comprised about a third of the nearly one hundred and fifty-five thousand inhabitants of the colony. But only 4 percent of all blacks and mulattos - fewer than two thousand people altogether and no more than one percent of the entire population - were free. Eighty percent of the free population was designated mulatto, but mixed racial origins did not necessarily or even usually lead to freedom. More than half of those enumerated as mulatto in 1755 were slaves, most of whom, like Robert Pearle, were probably the children of black slave women, whose status followed their mothers. Free people of mixed racial origins, on the other hand, frequently descended from white servant women who, aside from their free status, had little to offer their children, many of whom were often required to work as servants for long periods before obtaining their liberty.7

The small number of free blacks who lived in the eighteenth-century Chesapeake generally enjoyed limited opportunities for social and economic advancement. Although there were variations and exceptions, many held on to only a precarious freedom and lived a marginal existence in a "constricted world," not far removed in status, residence, or condition from their enslaved kinsmen. Most lacked access to land or skills, had often served some years in bondage before attaining their freedom, and were sometimes forced to contract themselves or their children into servitude to survive. All in all, their often humble origins, the courts, and racial prejudice conspired to keep most free blacks near the bottom of Chesapeake society.8

The well-to-do and well-connected Pearle stands out in striking contrast to the majority of free people of color in the early eighteenth-century Chesapeake. But in many ways Pearle's distinctiveness preceded, and indeed made possible his outstanding achievements. To be sure, Pearle must be credited with the personal drive and determination to carve out a place for himself and his family in a world dominated by white slave holders. But throughout the history of slavery, blacks repeatedly demonstrated their ability to seize opportunities to better their situations and occasionally win their freedom. Pearle was unique, however, in the unusual advantages he enjoyed, due in large part to the support, or at least acquiescence he received from the white community, which he won precisely because he was not like most free blacks in the region at that time. Pearle was not the son of a poor white servant woman, nor the descendant of one of the free black families from the charter generation who had managed to cling to a marginalized and precarious freedom. Rather, he was the son of a black slave woman and a white man, almost certainly his master, the wealthy and powerful Richard Marsham, a Roman Catholic with ties to the colony's proprietary family. Sexual relationships between masters and slaves were not unusual, but rarely did white owners free the offspring of these unions or make any provision for their mulatto children.9 Because Marsham did not acknowledge Pearle - then called "mulatto Robin" - as his son, his paternity cannot be definitively established, nor can his reasons for freeing his slave, which were not explicated in his will, be known. Nevertheless, what is clear is that Pearle enjoyed a highly unusual relationship with Marsham that led to his eventual freedom and probably accounted for the continuing white patronage he enjoyed after his master's death.

Marsham himself followed a trajectory in life remarkably parallel in some respects to that of mulatto Robin. Imported to the colony as a servant in 1658, Marsham began his rise to wealth and power after a period of bondage, as did Robin, though Marsham's time of servitude appears to have been short.10 Like others who started with little or nothing, including a few free blacks, Marsham quickly joined the scramble for land, labor, and upward mobility that characterized the mid-seventeenth-century Chesapeake. He soon began to acquire land and during the two decades before 1680 had acquired "wealth" and an "estate" by planting tobacco, engaging in trade, and - like mulatto Robin - plying the "art and mistery of a house Carpenter." During those years Marsham employed "great numbers or Gangs of servants" - probably white indentured servants - "for the ordering manageing Carying on and effecting of his said, trade, faculty, art, mistery, and businesse aforesaid."11 Like other aspiring Chesapeake entrepreneurs, Marsham apparently combined several different economic pursuits - his knowledge of carpentry (a skill he evidently passed on to mulatto Robin), trade, land, tobacco, and servants - to ascend the economic ladder. By the time he died Marsham had acquired an extensive estate that included thirty-six slaves and over three thousand acres of land.12

Not too long after beginning his rise to wealth and power, Marsham fell afoul of the law when, in 1669, the Calvert County court presented him for the murder of his servant Jenkin Price. Although the presentment was quashed for lack of evidence, the case suggests that Marsham was not the most benevolent master. And though the charges did not result in a trial, rumors regarding Marsham's treatment of Price would not die. Ten years later Marsham sued William Collins, one of his original accusers, claiming that the previous fall, a decade after the alleged crime had occurred, Collins, "malitiously intending" to deprive him of his "good name fame creditt and repute" had on more than one occasion publicly declared in the presence of several witnesses that Marsham had beaten his servant Jenkin Price to death. Perhaps there was no truth to these allegations, and Marsham was, as he claimed, always a "carefull Loveing and kinde Master towards all his servants." A jury trial did in fact return a verdict in favor of Marsham - not an exoneration of responsibility for Price's death, but a conviction of Collins, who was assessed nearly four thousand pounds of tobacco in fines and costs.13

Collins's motives remain a mystery, yet he was not the only person to accuse Marsham of murder, and his persistence in repeating those charges years later suggests that Marsham's reputation was not above challenge. It is also curious that Marsham did not immediately sue his accusers, including Collins, once the original charges had been dismissed in 1669. Perhaps Marsham was not as powerful then, nor his reputation so precious as it had apparently become ten years later, about the same time that he was first appointed as a justice of the peace in Calvert County. Marsham's appointment, in1679 and for several years thereafter, indicates that he had by then indeed left his lowly origins behind.14 He now not only had a reputation to protect but was, as Collins discovered to his financial detriment, a force to be reckoned with.

Sometime before his run-in with the court and soon after ending his indenture, Marsham had married his first wife, Catherine, who, like Marsham, was also a former indentured servant.15 Catherine bore Marsham two daughters, but, perhaps significantly for mulatto Robin, no male heir. Both daughters - possibly Robin's half-sisters - married extraordinarily well given their parents' humble beginnings, both to members of the Catholic gentry, which had not yet been deprived of political power by the Glorious Revolution of 1689 and its aftermath. One daughter, Catherine, married Baker Brooke (?-1698), the son of Baker Brooke (1628-1678/9), a wealthy Roman Catholic who served in the Upper House, on the governor's council, and as deputy governor of the colony, and his wife Ann Calvert (1644-c. 1714), who was herself the granddaughter, niece, and cousin, respectively, of the first, second, and third Lords Baltimore. The Marsham's other daughter, Sarah, did not make quite so striking a match, but her husband Basil Waring (1650-1688) was the son of Sampson Waring, a sheriff and justice in Calvert County and member of the colonial assembly. Sarah's son Marsham Waring (by 1688-1732) would later serve as executor of Richard Marsham's estate and interim owner of mulatto Robin while he served out his term.16

Eventually Marsham himself would make a second, highly distinguished match as the third husband of his daughter Catherine's mother-in-law, Ann (Calvert) (Brooke) Brent, whose first cousin was, at the time of her marriage to Marsham, the third Lord Baltimore. Ann was far too old (about fifty-two at the time of their c. 1696 marriage) to bear Marsham a male heir, but the couple did share common grandchildren in the offspring of their children, Baker and Catherine (Marsham) Brooke. By the time of his death in 1713, therefore, Marsham had, much like mulatto Robin, transcended his lowly beginnings to attain a truly impressive rise to wealth and power. With a personal estate including thirty-six slaves and valued at more than a thousand pounds, over three thousand acres of land, and a marital alliance with Maryland's proprietary family, Marsham had without doubt reached the very pinnacle of Chesapeake society.17

Parallels between Marsham and mulatto Robin, who began life much farther down the ladder and faced an entirely different set of challenges as a mixed race, former slave in the less-open eighteenth-century Chesapeake, should not be overdrawn, but are nevertheless compelling. To what extent Marsham's own experiences, including the lack of a legitimate male heir, might have influenced his relationship with his slave Robin is unknown. But shortly before his death, Marsham directed in his will that Robin and three other mulatto slaves eventually be set free. Robin, then twenty-eight, his mulatto wife Nanny, and their son Daniel, a sickly two-year-old, were to be "fully discharged and set free" when Robin reached age thirty-five, provided they be "vigilent and faithfull" to his executor during their time of servitude. Eighteen-year-old mulatto James, whose identity is unknown, was also freed under the same conditions. Marsham's other thirty-two, less fortunate "negro" men, women, and children were to be divided his grandchildren with no provision for future freedom.18

Aside from his manumission, further evidence of Robin's special position comes from the inventory of Marsham's goods made after his death, which reveals that Robin, the only slave so privileged, lived in his own house on the plantation, the contents of which were inventoried separately by Marsham's appraisers. The eclectic assortment of goods at "Robin's house," valued at nearly £60, included "one Indifferent good flock Bed boulster and old blankett," "3 worne Stript Duffies Matchcoates," a set of carpenter's tools, a chest, several yards of cloth and a pound of thread, a pair of scales and weights, an "old Plow," several hogs, 82 ounces of plate, and "1 ream of writing paper 6 papers Ink powder."19 Evidently the goods in Robin's house, even the tools of his trade, did not belong to him, as they were part of Marsham's estate. Nevertheless, he was the only slave who lived in his own house and clearly enjoyed a status different from the bulk of Marsham's other chattels.

While it seems likely that Robin's slave mother was also the property of Marsham, she was not, if still living, freed under the terms of his will. Possibly she was "Negro woman Sarah," age sixty, the only other slave singled out for special treatment. In his will Marsham directed that Sarah remain with her daughters "negro" Beck, age twenty-two, and "negro" Sarah, age fifteen, on his dwelling plantation "to Cair, and mend and make for so many of my Grand Children as shall dwell thereon." Marsham's executor was directed to ensure that Sarah have "good sufficient Dyet and apparill and to pay her yearly and every year during here natural Life the Sum of two Pounds Sterling provided she prove true and faithful" to his executor. At the time of Robin's birth Sarah would have been about thirty-two. Marsham's birth date is unknown, but assuming he was at least eighteen when imported in 1658 (born by c. 1640), he would have been at least forty-five. Since both of Marsham's daughters were born by about 1675, it seems quite possible that his liaison with his slave - if indeed such a relationship existed - began after the death of his first wife, and certainly preceded his second marriage. Marsham's Sarah was probably "old Negro Sarah at Mount Pleasant" freed by Marsham's grandson when he died in 1732, leaving her a legacy of £10 current money. If so, Sarah, like mulatto Robin, enjoyed remarkable longevity, living well into her seventies, and Marsham himself was at least seventy when he died.20

On the whole, Marsham appears somewhat conflicted about his relationship with his mulatto slave Robin. Although he accorded Robin a special status and eventually freed him and his family, the terms of his freedom were encumbered from the start. Not only were Robin and his wife to continue serving Marsham's heirs until age thirty-five, any children born to the couple before they had attained their freedom - that is from the time of Marsham's death in 1713 until 1720 - were to remain slaves, the property of Marsham's grandson and executor, Marsham Waring.21 Nor did Marsham provide Robin with any land or property with which to begin his new life; even the goods appraised in Robin's house belonged to Marsham's estate. Nevertheless, Marsham, who himself had, as already noted, once been a carpenter, probably ensured Robin's training in that skill. More importantly, Marsham gave Robin an invaluable and extremely rare gift with his eventual manumission. In doing so, he declared to Robin and to the community at large that Robin was different and should be treated differently from his other slaves. Marsham's patronage, whether it stemmed from paternal affection or some other source, probably ensured that Robin would receive continuing support from at least some other influential whites in the community.

Marsham's declaration that mulatto Robin was different probably resonated with some whites because at the time Marsham wrote his will in 1713 Robin was very different from most other slaves both on Marsham's plantation and in the Chesapeake region as a whole. Not only were all of the thirty-two slaves whom Marsham did not free "negros" rather than mulattos, their names suggest that some - Coco, Pompey, Prince, Dido, Quash, and Mingo - might have been African imports. Whatever the composition of Marsham's particular labor force, by the time of his death in 1713 the overwhelming majority of slaves living in the Chesapeake had been imported directly from Africa. These alien men and women, with their strange appearance, languages, and religions, contrasted strikingly with mulatto Robin, the son of a charter generation slave and a white father. Robin had far more in common with Marsham and other white slave holders than with the new arrivals from Africa. His mixed racial origins were only one of several features differentiating Robin from the majority of plantation slaves. A skilled artisan rather than a field hand, Robin was a second generation Marylander who spoke like a native, looked and dressed like a native, and who demonstrated a familiarity with the Chesapeake world: able to navigate the economy to prosper, use the courts to his advantage, and establish a place for himself and his family in a potentially hostile world. Furthermore, Robin was a Christian, more precisely, a Roman Catholic, the faith also ascribed to by his master. That religious affiliation, which Robin apparently maintained until his death, quite possibly won him some allies among the close knit Catholic gentry, who, though excluded from political office, still wielded considerable influence. (more to this, very lenghty)

404 Error - Page Not Found

http://www.lindapages.com/pearls/robertpearl-jeske.htm

**blugiant** · 03-18-2015, 12:56 PM

black self hatred ting dat sellouts pushinn fe diminished oyinbo guilt ann criminalitee

propaganda ting like afrikkans sold afrikkan slaves.

blakk peeps owning slaves? woo were dose so-called blakk peeps who owned slaves?

wen mixxed race peeps woo nuh tink dem natt blakk bought and sold bought dark skinned blakks fe impress oyinbo oyinbo used dem as xxamples fe justeefii oyinbo supremacee

iff blakk peeps buy dem own familee members fe free dem fram oyinbo enslavement, den oyinbo ann sellouts use dat as xxamples aff blakk buyinn slaves

mii wandarinn iff dat y lonwolf a tri fe use tropi as joke ting?

**blugiant** · 03-18-2015, 01:11 PM

Did African Slave Traders Sell Us Out?
By Tingba Muhammad -Guest Columnist

One of the most unseemly manifestations of Black self-hatred is the often violently held belief that 500 years ago Africans sold other Africans into centuries of slavery. It is heard most often when a Negro feels the need to shield Whites and Jews from having to answer for their dominant role in the Black Holocaust. “It was Blacks who sold other Blacks,” says the Negro, “so we can not hold Whites responsible for a crime in which we participated.” And by that suspect reasoning, they dismiss out of hand 500 years of the most brutal and murderous history the planet has ever known.

It is almost impossible to imagine a Jewish person saying anything similar: “Since there were Jews that financially supported Hitler, and Jews that were soldiers and officers in the Nazi army, and Jews that delivered other Jews to the concentration camps, I don’t want to hear about any Jewish Holocaust. We Jews helped Hitler!” The fact is, there actually were Jewish Nazis, and at least 77 Jews were officers in Hitler’s army, and a Jewish police force called the Judenrat was in charge of rounding up Jews for the death camps (they even had uniforms and star-of-David badges), but no Jew allows those facts to minimize the German responsibility for their people’s suffering. People who had no possible connection to the Jewish Holocaust—like the PALESTINIANS—must pay the price even before those Nazi-collaborating Jews.

Only Blacks seem to have adopted a strange psychosis that exculpates the White perpetrator and blames the Black victim. But this internecine scapegoating wholly depends not just on a colossal ignorance of the historical facts but on the sleight-of-hand deceptions of White historians who seek racial advantage, not historical clarity.

One must look very carefully at the charge of “Black” participation in the African slave trade, and as always the very best place to start is with The Most Honorable Elijah Muhammad. He described the method used by the European in his genocidal pursuit of free Black labor: “He goes into foreign lands of our people and the first thing he goes looking around for, with his green-blue eyes, just to get up to, is the woman, so that he can leave the seed of the devil there.” The first 15th-century Portuguese excursions into Africa prove The Messenger to be absolutely correct.

The Portuguese “explorers” used forced breeding on the Africans, a tactic which targets the genetic foundation of the indigenous population. European invaders deliberately created mixed-race subgroups with the intention of using them to capture and enslave the native populations. This “new breed” would serve as a “ruling class” to control the massive numbers of African slave laborers required by the colonies, and further serve as a buffer zone between the White oppressor and his Black victims. In America, we have come to know them as “house niggers,” or “mammies,” or “uncle toms,” and they were most often the lighter-skinned slaves—the children born of the rape of the Black woman. Back in Africa, the horrific suffering and debasement of the Black woman had a very specific economic purpose.

Arriving on the Cape Verde islands, about 350 miles off the coast of Senegal, Jewish slave merchants from Portugal in the mid-1400s sought to insert themselves in Africa’s commerce and trade. Just as The Messenger described, they kidnapped and raped African women, and the mixed-race offspring, called lancados, were raised on the island as European Jews, practicing Judaism and respecting Jewish authority. These lancados then were sent into the African mainland to set up an international “trading post” in the fine fabrics being produced by the Africans. But soon they turned on their hosts and began trading in Black human beings. The lancados literally were trained by their Jewish fathers to be slave traders—trained in the Jewish family business of slave-dealing. It was these half-breed, mixed-race (or mulatto) “half-ricans” who infiltrated the Black African communities, seeking to satisfy the European lust for Black labor. Because of their African blood admixture, deceptive White propagandists call these mixed-race Jewish slave traders “Africans”; Blacks view them, rightly, as Europeans, given their racial and cultural distance from African society and its practiced norms of thousands of years. One scholar was clear: “The offspring of these lancados and African women were called Jilhos de terra and were generally considered to be Portuguese.”

Historian Walter Rodney described these “AFRICAN” slave traders thus: “Many of the private traders were mulattoes, already linked to the Africans by blood, and there were those who had become so integrated into African life that they wore tribal tattoos. It was these who were the authentic lancados, literally ‘those who had thrown themselves’ among the Africans.”

Even Christopher Columbus was involved in the early slave trade and learned his skills as a sailor on the African coast. The Messenger referred to him as a “half-original man,” meaning he had African and European blood. Jewish scholars such as Simon Wiesenthal, Cecil Roth, and Tina Levitan are adamant about Columbus’ Jewishness. One might easily conclude that the notorious explorer was one of these lancados.

It is probably during his slave-dealing on coastal Africa that he heard of a “New World” overseas from African mariners, who had been visiting the Americas for thousands of years (see Dr. Ivan Van Sertima’s They Came Before Columbus). And if Columbus were not such an important part of the American (White) self-image—and if more people knew that he trafficked in African slaves and Indians (600 of whom he enslaved and brought to Europe)—he would probably be labeled an “African” slave trader as well.

Once they muscled into monopoly positions in trade, the lancados brought in European weapons to foment strife and wars between African tribes. This led to massive disruptions of African societies and the displacement of whole populations, as the transfer of captives, fueling the traffic in African human beings. This leads us to the important question of whether or not the “selling” of human beings was understood by the African tribal leaders to mean the kind of unspeakable cruelty and lifelong multi-generational bondage that Blacks experienced in the West. The answer is an emphatic NO! The labor systems practiced throughout the world for millennia (apprenticeship, peasantry, serfdom, indentureship, feudalism, tenant farming, sharecropping, etc.) had never had the dehumanizing commercial features that were a distinctive part of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade. Its horrifying brutality on a massive scale is entirely unique.

The term slavery itself has been strategically corrupted to include every labor system, no matter the nature of it or its severity. For instance, in some “slave” systems the “slave” had full legal rights and could negotiate the terms of his labor, including the time and compensation; some “slaves” could sue in court and could inherit property; some could ultimately take over their master’s business and even marry the master’s daughter. In one so-called slave society, it was believed that “when one gains a slave, he gains a son.” The “slave” had to eat and sleep in the same manner as the master. Even the Biblical story of Joseph being sold into slavery by his own brothers resulted in a “slave” becoming the most powerful man in Egypt next to Pharaoh. NONE of these humane features characterized slavery in the Americas!

The variety of slavery that developed in the isolation of the sugar islands off the African coast was entirely unprecedented and unknown. It was a new, dark element that injected medieval monstrosities into an agrarian culture of farmers that had never seen such atrocities before the European lancado invasion. It was a true slavery, a horrific slavery, under which its victims had no rights and no hope—by design.

So the “African” slave traders who “sold us out,” upon closer examination were actually half-European by blood and totally European by mentality. Our African spirit of welcoming every people regardless of color made the African people vulnerable to this wicked “half-original” incursion, and we have been paying a high price for it ever since.

(Tingba Muhammad is a citizen of the Nation of Islam and a member of the Nation of Islam Research Group.)

Did African Slave Traders Sell Us Out?

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/Perspectives_1/article_8941.shtml

**blugiant** · 03-18-2015, 01:13 PM

Islam, Colourism and the Myth of Black African Slave Traders

Africans in the Diaspora have the challenge of rewriting a history that has been stained by years of distortions, omission and downright lies. One of the biggest challenges of rewriting this history has been the Atlantic Slave Trade, and one of the biggest sore points has been the idea that "Black Africans sold their own into slavery". A lack of information, a paucity of expansive scholarship and an unwillingness to have a serious discourse on Colourism as it existed in Africa even before European intervention, has contributed to this. Diaspora Africans are often quite naïve and will do anything to hold fast to the illusion that " we are all Africans" and ignore the racism that has existed among a group that is far from uniform.

In looking at the issue of Colourism I could not help seeing the links between the role of Islam in Africa and the role of Africans in the slave trade. The book, Islam and the Ideology of Slavery by John Ralph Willis is very helpful in looking at the almost imperceptible link between the enslavement of 'kufir' non-Muslims or infidels, and the belief that Black Africans were not only heathens but inherently inferior. This is not a new thought and certainly not one that originated with the Muslims coming into Africa. Several Jewish exegetical texts have their own version of the mythical Curse of Ham being blackness. Given the common origins of these two major religions, it is thus not surprising that both Jews and Muslims played some of the most important roles in the enslavement of Black Africans next to the Europeans.

In an article by Oscar L. Beard, Consultant in African Studies called, Did We Sell Each Other Into Slavery? he says "Even the case of Tippu Tip may well fall into a category that we might call the consequences of forced cultural assimilation via White (or Red) Arab Conquest over Africa. Tippu Tip's father was a White (or Red) Arab slave raider, his mother an unmixed African slave. Tip was born out of violence, the rape of an African woman. It is said that Tip, a "mulatto", was merciless to Africans."

The story of Tippu Tip who is one of the most widely known slave traders has always posed a problem for historians, especially Afrocentric historians in the Diaspora trying to find some way to reconcile themselves to the idea of an 'African slave trader'. The fact that Tippu Tip was not only Muslim, but 'mulatto' is vital. The common ideology of Judaism and Islam where Black Africans are concerned is certainly no secret. While in some Islamic writings we see an almost mystical reverence for Africans, especially an over sexualized concept of Ethiopian women who were the preferred concubines of many wealthy Arab traders and Kings, in others there is distinct racism. Add to this the religious fervor of the Muslim invaders, their non-acceptance or regard for traditional African religions, and the obvious economic and political desires for which religion was used as a tool, and we get an excellent but little spoken of picture of Islam in Africa.

Historians did not often record or think of the ethnicity of these 'Africans' who sold their brothers and sisters into slavery. As part of our distorted historical legacy, we too in the Diaspora buy the idea that all Africans were uniform and 'brothers', but the true picture, especially at this time was not so. Centuries of contact with Europe, Asia, North Africa produced several colour / class gradients in the continent, divisions fostered by the foreigners. This may have been especially prominent in urban and economic centres. When we combine the converting, military force of Islam sweeping across western and eastern Africa placing a virtual economic stranglehold on villages and trading centers that were Kufir, with the intermixing of lighter-skinned Muslim traders from the North and East Africa creating an unprecedented population of mixed, lighter skinned Africans who began to form the elites of the trading classes we can see how a society begins to change.

Some historians have tended to downplay, or completely ignore the potential for change in scenario. It has even been suggested that one cannot transplant a modern day problem outside of its historical context. However, we see this creeping problem of colourism occurring all over the continent. In the Portuguese colonies of Angola and Mozambique where European traders and administrators were encouraged to intermarry, the elitist, trader class was largely Mulatto and Catholic. If we look at the situation in Ethiopia with the age-old oppression of the original Ethiopians, the Oromo of indigenous Cu****ic stock, by the more Arabized Amhara this too has its roots in colour prejudice. There were hints of this occurring in many other instances at crucial points of contact between indigenous black Africans and lighter-skinned foreigners or mixed Africans and the most significant of these were in the areas of severe Islamic incursion.

Many towns and villages converted to Islam because of the protection that the military banner of Islam could offer them in a changing economic, political and social landscape. But the more damaging result was the many light skinned, converted Africans, children of mixed encounters that now felt a sense of superiority over their dark skinned, black African counterparts. Colourism is indeed of ancient vintage. The truth of the matter is that fair skinned Arabs' racist attitude towards Blacks existed even before they invaded Africa. The evidence for this can be found in how they dealt with the Black inhabitants of Southern Arabia before they entered Africa as Muslims. Discerning readers and thinkers can look at this and many other accounts of this time and get a clearer picture of the inherent racism of this situation. When we combine this with the desire for African slave labour by Europeans it was no large feat for these often lighter skinned, Islamized Africans to enslave the black kufir, whom they barely endowed with a shred of humanity. And of course jumping on their bandwagon would have been those black Africans with deep inferiority complexes, who would have been only too eager to do the duty of the 'superior' Muslims in an effort to advance themselves. These facts are certainly not hidden and the patterns are everywhere, even today but it is we who do not like to see. For centuries we certainly have not been conditioned for Sight.

This leads us to another direct way colourism played itself out in the slave trade and this is in the 'type' of Africans who were enslaved. The biggest victims of slavery were undoubtedly the darkest Africans of what was called the "Negroid" type. If you look at old maps and documents by early European explorers you can note that the parts of the continent that they explored was divided by their crude definitions of what they saw as different African ethnicities. The regions of West and Central Africa were seen as the place of the "Negroes" which was distinct from Ethiopian Africans and even more so the lighter, more Arabized North Africans. We cannot say that NO Africans we taken from the north, but by and large most slaves that came to the West Indies, Americas etc were of the type mentioned above.

Beard continues, "In reality, slavery is an human institution. Every ethnic group has sold members of the same ethnic group into slavery. It becomes a kind of racism; that, while all ethnic groups have sold its own ethnic group into slavery, Blacks can't do it. When Eastern Europeans fight each other it is not called tribalism. Ethnic cleansing is intended to make what is happening to sound more sanitary. What it really is, is White Tribalism pure and simple." But the thing is that this thing we call 'slavery' never was a uniform institution. When people speak of slavery they immediately think of chattel slavery as practiced as a result of the Atlantic Slave Trade and apply this definition to indigenous African servitude systems, which bore little or no resemblance to chattel slavery. It is misleading to say, "Every ethnic group has sold members of the same ethnic group into slavery. It becomes a kind of racism; that, while all ethnic groups have sold its own ethnic group into slavery, Blacks can't do it" as it denies the complexities of that particular colonial, chattel slavery situation that existed between Africans and Europeans.

Servitude systems that existed in Africa, and in other indigenous communities cannot be compared to racist slave systems in the Western world and to this day we attempt to try to see this slavery in the same context. People bring up accounts of Biblical slavery, of serfdom in Europe and yes, of servitude in Africa and attempt to paint all these systems with the same brush. However NO OTHER SLAVE SYSTEM has created the never-ending damaging cycle as the Atlantic Slave Trade. West Indian poet Derek Walcott has stated his feeling that our penchant for forgetting is a defense mechanism against pain, that if we were to take a good hard look at our history, at centuries of victimization, it would be too much for us to handle and we would explode. Well I say we are exploding anyway and in many cases from bombs that are not even our own. We have begun the long hard road of rewriting our ancient history, of recovering our old and noble legacy. Let us not stop and get cold feet now when the enemy now appears to take on a slightly darker hue. We must look at the slave trade in its OWN context, complete with all the historic and psychological peculiarities that have made it the single most damaging and enduring system of exploitation and hatred ever perpetrated in the recent memory of mankind. Until we do we will not escape its legacy.

From: https://www.rootswomen.com/ayanna/ar.../10022004.html

**lonewolf** · 03-18-2015, 05:17 PM

mii wandarinn iff dat y lonwolf a tri fe use tropi as joke ting?

LOL Yeah, keep wandarinn there, blu. Keep stir'n the pot... I see you and tropi keep'n busy talk'n to YOURSELVES. Not much traffic on either one of you and tropi's threads...get'n lonely yet?

Keep stir'n pot...

**Tropicana** · 03-18-2015, 05:33 PM

Originally posted by blugiant View Post

black self hatred ting dat sellouts pushinn fe diminished oyinbo guilt ann criminalitee

propaganda ting like afrikkans sold afrikkan slaves.

blakk peeps owning slaves? woo were dose so-called blakk peeps who owned slaves?

No it is not propaganda. If you cross check the:

- the names on the Jamaican slave registries

or

- the list of those who received payouts

with christening records that state often state whether the child was Negro, Mulatto, Quadroon, Octoroon, or Mustee and the birth and marriage certificates...it is clear. It would be impossible to rig all these documents that are located in different places.

Originally posted by blugiant View Post

blakk peeps owning slaves? woo were dose so-called blakk peeps who owned slaves?

wen mixxed race peeps woo nuh tink dem natt blakk bought and sold bought dark skinned blakks fe impress oyinbo oyinbo used dem as xxamples fe justeefii oyinbo supremacee

iff blakk peeps buy dem own familee members fe free dem fram oyinbo enslavement, den oyinbo ann sellouts use dat as xxamples aff blakk buyinn slaves

Black people...I don't care if they were 1/8 1/4 or 1/2 Black. They were Black and the descendants of slaves.

I do agree that one of the reasons they have gone into so much detail about each slave owner in the payout list is they know you know what was going to hit the fan.

Reparations is a tricky business. Certainly, this can be done government to government but when people have both slave owners and slaves in their family....the possibility of sue the estate of the slave owner becomes tricky.

Look at this example.

This Black British celebrity chef discovered that he was descended from a Black slave and a busha on one side of the family.....

**Tropicana** · 03-18-2015, 05:35 PM

.....and a slaveowner on the other side of his family....

Start at 6:40....

He has the slave owners name but the black heritage on this side of the family came after slavery.

**Tropicana** · 03-18-2015, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by blugiant View Post

mii wandarinn iff dat y lonwolf a tri fe use tropi as joke ting?

Lonwolf...what has HE got to do with this? I do not interact with him.

**blugiant** · 03-18-2015, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by lonewolf View Post

LOL Yeah, keep wandarinn there, blu. Keep stir'n the pot... I see you and tropi keep'n busy talk'n to YOURSELVES. Not much traffic on either one of you and tropi's threads...get'n lonely yet?

Keep stir'n pot...

do yuh kno da diffanance between lonely ann alone

yuh reallee tink dat mi cancerned bout da traffikk on da tredd mii do?

it easee fe gitt traffikk iff yuh ave da skill ann mii ave da skill butt dat is natt mii intent. to mii itt bout raisinn issues dat iss aff cancern to blakks ann tredds dat mekk mii laff. traffikk iss natt mii cancern. y yuh tink fimi tredds gitt more traffikk dan fi yuh given dat mii natt cancern bout traffikk. even tropi tredds gitt more traffikk dan yuh

yuh kno dat de real reasons fe da argument dat tropi raisinn inn diss tredd iss cah oyinbo defendinn oyinbo supremacee ann arguinn against reparations. dat y yuh feel good widd attakkinn da messenger, tropi, instead aff da argument shi raisinn

**blugiant** · 03-18-2015, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Tropicana View Post

No it is not propaganda. If you cross check the:

Black people...I don't care if they were 1/8 1/4 or 1/2 Black. They were Black and the descendants of slaves.

I do agree that one of the reasons they have gone into so much detail about each slave owner in the payout list is they know you know what was going to hit the fan.

Reparations is a tricky business. Certainly, this can be done government to government but when people have both slave owners and slaves in their family....the possibility of sue the estate of the slave owner becomes tricky.

oyinbo tryinn fe muddee da issue fe reduce dem legal lieabilities usinn sellout ann propaganda.

iff yuh studee da histaree aff da ancient blakk egyptians yuh will see itt wen dem started fe mixxed widd oyinbo dat was wat destroyed da blakk egyptian empire. iff yuh look att enslaved afrikkans inn merikka yuh will see dat de reason fe dem lack aff progress iss mixxed race peeps. itt wen da oyinbo enslavers neva embraced dem mixxed race affsprings dat dem mzungu playtings woo warship oyinbo as superiors tarted fe chatt bout dem mixxed race aff springs were blakks even dough cah dem lita dem were given diffarant social status cah aff colorism. diss reminded mii aff annada tredd wahalla started. onlee crazee blakk peeps wood argue dat oyinbo lookinn lita skin ar blakk cah dem a trii fii denii dat skin pigment nuh important.

mixxed race children aff oyinbo slave masters inherited sum aff dem oyinbo parents blakk slaves butt dat nuh meen dem were blakk. one drop rule blakks mean oyinbo defined woo iss blakk wild mii keep arguinn dat blakks define woo iss blakk

**Tropicana** · 03-18-2015, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by blugiant View Post

oyinbo tryinn fe muddee da issue fe reduce dem legal lieabilities usinn sellout ann propaganda.

iff yuh studee da histaree aff da ancient blakk egyptians yuh will see itt wen dem started fe mixxed widd oyinbo dat was wat destroyed da blakk egyptian empire. iff yuh look att enslaved afrikkans inn merikka yuh will see dat de reason fe dem lack aff progress iss mixxed race peeps. itt wen da oyinbo enslavers neva embraced dem mixxed race affsprings dat dem mzungu playtings woo warship oyinbo as superiors tarted fe chatt bout dem mixxed race aff springs were blakks even dough cah dem lita dem were given diffarant social status cah aff colorism. diss reminded mii aff annada tredd wahalla started. onlee crazee blakk peeps wood argue dat oyinbo lookinn lita skin ar blakk cah dem a trii fii denii dat skin pigment nuh important.

mixxed race children aff oyinbo slave masters inherited sum aff dem oyinbo parents blakk slaves butt dat nuh meen dem were blakk. one drop rule blakks mean oyinbo defined woo iss blakk wild mii keep arguinn dat blakks define woo iss blakk

There is no way that I agree with you. Using your argument, the only people you would consider "Black" are those who are pure Black. MANY Black people in the Western hemisphere are mixed. Look at how dark the man in the video is and yet he is mixed on both sides of his family. Are you going to tell me he is not Black?

The reality is that Blacks owned other Blacks. It is a fact whether you want to admit it or not. That does not reduce the liability of the White slave holders. It would be reasonable to sue the estates of those who held one's ancestors in captivity. With slave registers on line and the legacy database, we can identify them. It would be up to the courts to decide who ends up paying. The bottom line is that some Black descendants could end up having to pay depending on what the courts decide. There have been no test cases so far. I am seriously thinking of trying it. That and action against the governments who supported and encouraged this would be warranted. There have been no apologies and no attempt to right the wrongs that were done. For this reason, it will come to legal action being pursued and some Black people will find themselves caught in the crossfire.

Black People Owning Slaves

Black People Owning Slaves

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

ads