Double-Standard Racism

[Ed Elric]

Double-Standard Racism

I saw a post on Facebook of this woman ranting about how someone was making racist comments towards her friends. They were African American and apparently there were a couple of caucasian people at the bar in the restruant that they were in. Now I don't know the details of this, or how the argument started but apparently the white people had thrown out hateful remarks yelling "******s" and what have you towards these people. This young woman (friend of the African Americans) then began bashing the white people and saying things about them in [order to] "stick up" for her African American friends. She then began blaming them for the events at Ferguson etc etc. I was thinking to myself: What your friends had witnessed was not at all the same situations of what happened in Ferguson.. What I can conclude is that she blames the cop because he was "racist" for the events of Furgeson. I can't speak for itself and I don't want to get too touchy here, but the justice system and someone's actions are two different things. The violence that grew there was because they had felt injusticed and wronged for their people. (I hope I'm making sense lol) What if the cop had a reason? What if it was a white man shot by a black cop? Would that be okay? Why is there a double-standard here? I've seen multiple stories online about other races [white, asian, hispanics] that something happened to their loved ones, by the blacks and they got no media coverage, etc etc. Why is it okay for them to be expempt? Why is it that the media targets the Whites for being criminals? Little do I see it in the news of it being the other way around.

Maybe it's because I'm white myself. but I don't see the logical in all of this. What does this accomplish for the US? I have so many damned questions and not enough answers. I know that this double-standard will never go away however, I do feel like it needs to be addressed.. sadly, I don't think it will be.
Not all cops are bad,
not all people are evil
etc.

So why do these people blame the whole group? Why not the individuals?
Will we ever have peace?



Thoughts?

 

[iSmiff]

It's difficult to say. The statistics speak for themselves in the sense that a black person is 20 x more likely to be shot and killed by police in America than a white person. But then again each case should be treated individually also. Racism is a very circumstantial thing too. Someone could call me the most offensive white related insult they could possibly think of and I would probably not be offended in the slightest, however other races definitely would be - but a lot of that is to do with history. Also depends where you are and what you say. Using derogatory terms against the nations dominant racial demographic is deemed less offensive than against a minority. Racism is a very strange thing in the way they it does seem that it's 1 rule for 1 and 1 rule for another. I don't know enough about ferguson to comment. I hear he went for the cops gun but then I also hear the cop shot him when he had his arms in the air and surrenderig. I don't know what really happened

 

[Ed Elric]

It's difficult to say. The statistics speak for themselves in the sense that a black person is 20 x more likely to be shot and killed by police in America than a white person. But then again each case should be treated individually also. Racism is a very circumstantial thing too. Someone could call me the most offensive white related insult they could possibly think of and I would probably not be offended in the slightest, however other races definitely would be - but a lot of that is to do with history. Also depends where you are and what you say. Using derogatory terms against the nations dominant racial demographic is deemed less offensive than against a minority. Racism is a very strange thing in the way they it does seem that it's 1 rule for 1 and 1 rule for another. I don't know enough about ferguson to comment. I hear he went for the cops gun but then I also hear the cop shot him when he had his arms in the air and surrenderig. I don't know what really happened

Oh yes, I do agree. I know that history does play its part as a whole, but people neglect that there was white slaves, poor white men, etc etc. I'm not an historian, but I do feel like there are missing things throughout history that could have altered todays society.. in the sense that there wouldn't be so much violence towards each other. All they see as group, is the big picture in the text books. They see it as the whites hold all the power. "MUST HATE WHITES!" Now I do also know its because the Africans weren't equal at the time, but if we could educate our children better we could have eased this two-sided racism.

 

[CassinoChips]

Oh yes, I do agree. I know that history does play its part as a whole, but people neglect that there was white slaves, poor white men, etc etc. I'm not an historian, but I do feel like there are missing things throughout history that could have altered todays society.. in the sense that there wouldn't be so much violence towards each other. All they see as group, is the big picture in the text books. They see it as the whites hold all the power. "MUST HATE WHITES!" Now I do also know its because the Africans weren't equal at the time, but if we could educate our children better we could have eased this two-sided racism.

In the US, there was never a government-sanctioned system of white slavery, which was in turn the primary reason that white Americans remain socioeconomically disadvantaged. We never fought a war (arguably two; one political and one cultural) over white slavery. Black Americans experienced the absolute worst this country could offer for 400 years. It has gotten remarkably better since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but events like Ferguson and the Eric Garner situation show how far we have yet to go.

Are all cops racist? Certainly not. Does the justice system systematically discriminate against blacks (and other minorities)? There is a preponderance of evidence that suggests it does.

 

[Ed Elric]

In the US, there was never a government-sanctioned system of white slavery, which was in turn the primary reason that white Americans remain socioeconomically disadvantaged. We never fought a war (arguably two; one political and one cultural) over white slavery. Black Americans experienced the absolute worst this country could offer for 400 years. It has gotten remarkably better since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but events like Ferguson and the Eric Garner situation show how far we have yet to go.

Are all cops racist? Certainly not. Does the justice system systematically discriminate against blacks (and other minorities)? There is a preponderance of evidence that suggests it does.

Oh wow, yeah that totally makes sense. I suppose it's because the whites were the ones to take the land from the Natives and what have you. I guess because of this, the whites were dominant at the time of races. I think it's because those few whites that were slaves might as well as have been black in the eyes of the system and they threw them off. Also probably because there were too few in number to start a war over white slavery.

 

[CassinoChips]

Oh wow, yeah that totally makes sense. I suppose it's because the whites were the ones to take the land from the Natives and what have you. I guess because of this, the whites were dominant at the time of races. I think it's because those few whites that were slaves might as well as have been black in the eyes of the system and they threw them off. Also probably because there were too few in number to start a war over white slavery.

Whites were dominant because they kidnapped Africans and/or paid Africans to kidnap other Africans and then shipped them across an ocean where they were bought and sold like cattle, backed by a government system that enabled and enshrined this chattel treatment.

I'm not sure what you mean by "white slavery" in the US. Are you talking about indentured servitude?

 

[Ed Elric]

I'm not sure what you mean by "white slavery" in the US. Are you talking about indentured servitude?

Well, no because I'm not saying "white slaves" to justify what indentured servitude was, because they worked to gain movement and free passage... I was thinking more in the lines of the whites with less fortune and therefore were pushed down the chain of command and into the title as a slave. I know (because I've done research on it) that there were white slaves from Britan that were slaves and brought into America.

 

[CassinoChips]

Well, no because I'm not saying "white slaves" to justify what indentured servitude was, because they worked to gain movement and free passage... I was thinking more in the lines of the whites with less fortune and therefore were pushed down the chain of command and into the title as a slave. I know (because I've done research on it) that there were white slaves from Britan that were slaves and brought into America.

Yeah, there were a couple of instances of that. Cromwell sent about 100,000 Irish to North America and the Caribbean, and the Scots were known to send the Romani over. Huge differences though, as it wasn't a systematic trade for hundreds of years, and was not nearly on the same scale as chattel slavery. Most of the other groups who were "transported" were basically prisoners of war, criminals, or people the British/others wanted to get rid of for whatever reason, and they were more or less isolated instances. Africans were taken for no other reason than they were African and could hold up well under the intensity of the working conditions, and it was an integral part of the Triangular Trade. Just really no comparison based on scale.

 

[ribbit]

What if it was a white man shot by a black cop? Would that be okay?

It wouldn't be okay if it wasn't justified, but you can guarantee the conservatives would be having a field day.

Why is it that the media targets the Whites for being criminals? Little do I see it in the news of it being the other way around.

What? Nobody targets white people for being white. Criminals are targeted for being criminals. People of color are targeted for not being white.

Maybe it's because I'm white myself.

Being white and privileged makes it difficult to understand that people of color have it so much worse just because they're not white.

So why do these people blame the whole group? Why not the individuals?

It's easier to refer to an entire group rather than single out the few good people that are left in the world. Racist white people are a problem. Not every white person is racist, and generalizing isn't the right thing to do, but if you were in their shoes then you'd understand. Just because people are calling out white people's bullshit doesn't mean there's reverse racism going on here. God forbid people are upset with how white people treat them.

 

[Shu]

Racism never cancels out racism. Just like bad never cancels out Bad. Every energy whether positive or negative never fixes the same. It might of course "Bolster" the same, like positive energy with positive, makes more positive, but racism plus racism = more racism.

Sorry but there is no "reasoning" here. There are only emotions, you take emotions out you have pure rational thought. You can't always tie something that happened 100% to the young/middle aged generation.

You can of course teach "racism", but reverse racism is worse in my opinion. I'm not saying one should ever "take" racism, I'm saying there are better ways in handling it.

 

[Ed Elric]

People of color are targeted for not being white.

Being white and privileged makes it difficult to understand that people of color have it so much worse just because they're not white.

It's easier to refer to an entire group rather than single out the few good people that are left in the world. Racist white people are a problem. Not every white person is racist, and generalizing isn't the right thing to do, but if you were in their shoes then you'd understand. Just because people are calling out white people's bullshit doesn't mean there's reverse racism going on here. God forbid people are upset with how white people treat them.

That's what the sad thing here is... I think it has to do with generations raising their children the ways to discriminate against them. I'm not trying to claim that I know how it feels to be in their shoes, etc and I understand from history the blacks have always been mistreated, I'm just saying they aren't the only people being attacked. That's why I've always admired the ways of Dr. Martin King Jr. he knew that nothing would be solved if there was no peace-making involved and his hard work paid off.

Racism never cancels out racism. Just like bad never cancels out Bad. Every energy whether positive or negative never fixes the same. It might of course "Bolster" the same, like positive energy with positive, makes more positive, but racism plus racism = more racism.

Sorry but there is no "reasoning" here. There are only emotions, you take emotions out you have pure rational thought. You can't always tie something that happened 100% to the young/middle aged generation.

You can of course teach "racism", but reverse racism is worse in my opinion. I'm not saying one should ever "take" racism, I'm saying there are better ways in handling it.

That's exactly how I feel, Shu.

 

[ribbit]

That's why I've always admired the ways of Dr. Martin King Jr. he knew that nothing would be solved if there was no peace-making involved and his hard work paid off.

And then a white guy shot him.

They may not be the only people being attacked (LBGTQ has their own shit to deal with as well), but the few white people being discriminated against for their skin color are few and far between. Is someone in the right for any form of discrimination? No. But saying "what about discrimination against whites?", well, what about it? No, we shouldn't say that it's okay and shrug it off, but we also shouldn't shift focus completely in favor of white people (just like with MRA's trying to distract from feminism). This has been ongoing for years and hasn't stopped. People are bitter and upset and will generalize and say things they don't actually mean. It's going to happen. I'd rather see something done about discrimination against people of color than ignore them and deal with butthurt white people that can't stand to see POC issues getting more attention than them.

 

[Ed Elric]

And then a white guy shot him.

They may not be the only people being attacked (LBGTQ has their own shit to deal with as well), but the few white people being discriminated against for their skin color are few and far between. Is someone in the right for any form of discrimination? No. But saying "what about discrimination against whites?", well, what about it? No, we shouldn't say that it's okay and shrug it off, but we also shouldn't shift focus completely in favor of white people (just like with MRA's trying to distract from feminism). This has been ongoing for years and hasn't stopped. People are bitter and upset and will generalize and say things they don't actually mean. It's going to happen. I'd rather see something done about discrimination against people of color than ignore them and deal with butthurt white people that can't stand to see POC issues getting more attention than them.

I respect what you're talking about.

I'm not saying that they're getting attacked because of their skin color, I'm saying that these cases where it is the other way around, they don't get recongition.[for whatever reasoning it said situation caused-- based on color or not eg: personal hatred or drug related instences, etc] Who cares about whites, though right? We're evil and greedy and we don't matter. It's not about us as a group, but what about the individuals that do suffer from this and their families? I'm not saying to completely focus on whites, I just feel as though there is a double-standard especially in the media about such events. What do you suggest that this something be done? By back-firing and causing more hate within this? It's not even about the fact that their getting attention... if something happens [Furgeson, for example] yes, i believe it should get attention and be brought to justice. I'm simply saying that it's unfair to other people that do get attacked and people lie, cover it up, simply because of the media. [doesn't matter who it is]

　
For example there was an article I found [11.30.14] about St. Louis where the chief of police and mayor both lied to look good for the media claiming it wasn't due to color. Why? were these people in anyway harming these young teenagers? No. It's a different generation different age. Would you simply hold a grudge because of what History put you through? No matter what situation you're in no matter WHAT. There's always going to be different beliefs, opinions. I wasn't at the tragic events of Ferguson. All I knew was that a young man was dead. Do I blame the officer?? How am I to judge and conclude the situation if I personally wasn't there? Was this officer in the wrong? Was it the kid? I can simply say this: whatever color you may be, it doesn't matter. I don't believe that he should have been shot, [especially bc he was a teenager] but like I said I wasn't there. Was the kid threatening the officer? Maybe. Was this kid unarmed? armed? This goes into the topic of police and their power which isn't what my concern is [in this thread] Do I feel like police force abuse their power? sure. However for me, I'm not in the justice system i'm not able to determine the consequences of what happens to the officer. The only key people who even have the right to judge what happened, would be witnesses.
　
　

Maybe in certain peoples eyes there are only a "few" good white people, but what about the white people like me? Who simply want peace between the races without the double-standard within the media? I'm not bashing or flaming anyone.. [bc I know the Conversatives are all over this shit--some articles I did read they were calling the attackers names--which I don't believe is right what does that solve? I feel like they should stick to facts not their personally opinions of calling them "thugs" etc]

I'm just asking why? why is there no fairness in it? Will it always be a political battle? Why can't it be soely on principle and peace? I know it may seem ike i'm being a conservative asshole here, but I could careless about politics.. so damned corrupt.. It's my personal belief as a human [not based on what others say, etc] that the media is unfair.. I feel like it's a fact that they ignore other key stories simply because maybe they're afraid? They don't want to come off as 'racist'? As long as they stick to plain facts and not beliefs why would it matter? Everyone has value doesn't matter your sex, age, orgin, or income.

 

[CassinoChips]

are you somehow saying that the oyo empire doesn't have an equal hand in the atlantic slave trade? because you're making it seem as if the white man went to africa and told those kings to sell us their conquered neighbors when that's not how it happened. those kings conquered neighboring kingdoms and sold them as slaves to anyone willing to buy them so that they could be even more powerful

Stop. Yes, slavery existed in Africa among African tribes. Slavery has existed as long as "civilization" has existed. But it was absolutely nothing like chattel slavery. Comparing the two is completely disingenuous.

(much like how rome would enslave countries they conquered, but that's not racist so we'll forget about that).

Rome left tribes they conquered alone, so long as they paid their taxes and didn't rebel. Rome even in several cases adopted the cultures of those they conquered, even going so far as to erect shrines to the gods of the conquered peoples. I don't remember any African cultural norms being adopted by whites.

have you ever heard about how rome committed 'racial suicide'? they got that label by enslaving many different kinds of people and having offspring with them--we're talking, arabs, europeans, and blacks and more--it's why modern-day mediterraneans have the genetic buildup that they do now (and why we italians got the same slurs as africans).

We got the same slurs because we weren't WASPy enough. Moreover, none of that really has anything to do with slavery.

putting aside the fact that slavery has been going on for thousands of years for all races, are we just going to forget about anthony johnson? he too was labeled an 'indentured servant' until he gained his freedom, that was how he was able to be the first person ever to sue for the complete ownership of another human being even after their owed time was paid... and he was black.

As compared to the thousands of white slaveowners.

how are you unaware of the irish slave trade?

that is something that made the irish population drop from 1,500,000 to 600,000 in a single decade. the irish were so hated that they were seen as 'lesser' than the blacks and went for much cheaper prices because of their inferior and 'dirty' blood, thus people believed it to be economically acceptable to kill irish slaves more often than any other slave.

Pretty sure I mentioned it.

let's not forget the wonderful propaganda that likened blacks and irish to inferior animals

now i'm curious, does anyone here know the numbers for how many and who owned slaves in the states?

this is not just directed at any one individual;

Around 25% of the Southern population at any given time owned one or more slaves. Less than 1% of the population owned 50 or more slaves. I'm fully aware of the statistics. Slaves were seen as a luxury item, much like cars today. Because they were seen as property, and not people, which is the real problem, and what separates the American (as in the continents) version of chattel slavery from that of any other region in the world. It is unique.

the fact is, slavery has been just as severe and freedom depriving for about any slave that's existed, the only difference now is that we documented how african slaves were treated, we didn't do that for the jews or the ancient enslaved peoples.

No, the difference is that chattel slavery was a uniquely brutal system.

now, i personally would argue they deserve more sympathy now, but not because of slavery, more so because our government is systematically trying to eliminate them from our country (dating back to the start of planned parenthood) with multiple schemes (like black genocide).

 

[CassinoChips]

You understand that every slave trade I spoke of practiced that, right?

Not really. Early slavery, and the majority of slavery around the world, was based on three things: War, crime, and/or debt. Nowhere else was it a systematic, governmentally and legally backed system on the scale that it was practiced in the Americas.

It's not something unique to only blacks.

The scale of suffering the American black slave experienced was quite unique.

I mean, are the sex slaves not treated as personal possessions by their enslavers? Were the irish--when they were being kidnapped at ages 6-14---not treated like personal possessions when they were forced to work and live like animals? Or did the irish children and the women captured into sex slavery doing all that for the fun of it? Look, every slave is treated as someone else's personal possession, Jesse, that's what slavery is. The rest is just semantics.

No, the rest is scale. A match on fire and a five-alarm fire are quite different animals. But both are fire.

Oh, and your numbers about Irish slaves are wrong and I'd go into detail why,

You realize Cromwell was only in power in England for about 2 years, right?

but seeing your tone of attitude I can see where this is going. Luckily my facts are up for other people to indulge on and learn from. But I really wish you could try making at least one respectful reply to me once in a while, because I really do think you're an intelligent person worth engaging topics like this with... but not with that attitude, especially when there's not much I can do to a mod in return (unless I wish to get banned).

Have a good one, Jesse.

As for anyone else, I'll, of course, get back to you with lengthy replies.

Come on, we've had knockdowndragouts before. You know the drill. You post insulting gifs, I post snarky replies. To quote Triple T, "That's not new, baby!"

 

[CassinoChips]

As for the Irish slavery; http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076

"From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English and another 300,000 were sold as slaves. Ireland’s population fell from about 1,500,000 to 600,000 in one single decade."

Cromwell ruled from 1656-1658. So that's not even the time period I was talking about.

"During the 1650s, over 100,000 Irish children between the ages of 10 and 14 were taken from their parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England."

That's the time period I was talking about.

So what about slavery in Greece/Rome? You had people auctioning off humans, you had citizenship being deprived (and all together for women slaves), Greece even practiced chattel slavery more often than not.

Sparta was pretty brutal towards their slaves, no doubt. But their slave population was nowhere near the levels it would have taken to be the equivalent of African slavery. It's just not on the same level. And again, Rome expanded citizenship to many conquered nations. There was certainly slavery there, but again, not on the same scale.

Women are killed, deprived of food and water, and are tortured if they do not do what their master tells them (for sex slavery), they are not allowed to leave or do anything without their 'owner's' consent (voting, etc). Someone could possibly argue that sex slaves have it worse since the entire world turns a blind eye to it, especially since it's been happening for thousands of years.

Generally agree. But that's kind of away from the original point of the post.

You're correct, the black slavery suffering was unique, but no more unique than what a sex slave experiences. Both are unique in their own ways but at least a overwhelming majority of people on the planet know of black slavery and ended it after 500 years.

I'm not sure how a thing can be "more unique" than something else. Also, does it being in the popular consciousness somehow lessen the impact? I'm not sure why that matters.

 

[CassinoChips]

Why does it matter what time you were talking about? You still didn't include the 900,000+ Irish slaves when you were speaking, and when you did so, you used small numbers during Cromwell's rule as a means to downplay my Irish people's enslavement in order to prove that black slavery 'had it worse'. I merely included my time period and number of Irish slaves because you didn't mention that part of our history, that's all.

Because I was just giving one example? My Cromwell comment wasn't even originally directed towards you. Basically what I said was "Yes, there were Irish slaves. An example of that would be Cromwell sending 100k Irish over to the New World." I'm not sure why this is a sticking point, considering I'm agreeing.

Well, I know in Sparta the helots outnumbered spartans 20 to 1 (it is widely accepted that the helots vastly outnumbered the spartans). But I didn't (until now) know the exact numbers of the spartan population and this is all I could find;

Spartans (homoi and hypomeioni)- 32,000
Perioikoi (Lakonia & Messenia) - 50,000
Helots (Lakonia & Messenia, Domestic & agricultural-170,000
Total-252,000

That same website says that the slave population in Athens was 115,000, compared to the population of 'citizens' of 172,000, that is a very large amount of slaves. Still, even if numbers are unknown we could easily argue population differences. We could argue that if the population of Sparta had been as high as the American population at the start of the civil war that the slave population would be even higher. SO, let me try and do the math (bare with me here, this isn't one of my strong points ).

The numbers for Sparta are great, but the problem is that slaves in Athens were absolutely not treated the same as slaves in many other places, Sparta among them. Slaves in Athens had jobs in which they earned and income, and could buy their way out of slavery over time. They were tutors to their owner's children. They were painters, musicians, and artisans. It's a vastly different experience than chattel slavery.

By 1860 there were;
Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population).
Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).
Total number of slaves in the Border States: 432,586 (13% of total population).
(source)


In total, there were 27 million whites in the U.S., with eight million of them living in the slave-holding states; and supposedly (if these sources are correct, which they should be because they're official, but you can always download the PDF yourself and check, too) there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves in the entire union. So even if ALL of these slaveholders had been 'white' (not true because we know there were black slave holders, and also Native American slave owners as well), that would amount to only 1.4 percent of white Americans in the country, furthermore, that amounts to only 4.8 percent of southern whites who owned one or more slaves in total. Now, I will be honest, I didn't do the percentage math on this, but that seems to be widely cited on the census charts so I just went with that instead of spending hours of antagonizing mathematical analyzing just to come up with the wrong answer.

This is copy and paste from the above source linked below the "Total number of slaves ..." numbers: "Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves."

You're trying to game the numbers. If a family of four owned a single slave, does that mean that 75% of that family did not own a slave?

And, of course, like I said earlier, the atlantic slave trade pales in comparison to the Arab slave trade, which lasted from 650 AD to 1900 AD. Estimations say that a 18 million Africans were enslaved by Arab slave traders and that over one million Europeans were enslaved by the Muslim world during that time as well. And remember, south america had slaves shipped to its land, and let's not forget Spain and Portugal's involvement, either.

Yeah, most of the African slaves went to the Caribbean and South America. In the neighborhood of 60-70%. But they were held by European whites primarily. That's why I said a couple different times that "America" in this case refers to the continents, not the country. Unless we were specifically referring to the South or the US.

The atrocities and torture experienced by those slaves were no different than what slaves in North America experienced (except for the fact that NA slaves had the chance for freedom, while history tells us majority of slaves throughout history died as slaves, especially women slaves) and yet people like to talk of American slavery as if it's the worse there ever was or that it was the only occurrence of such an atrocity.

Not worse. Different.

On the contrary, slaves in Greece/Sparta varied from many categories, ranging from free citizen to chattel slave and on and on, so we can't really say how those slaves lived. You are correct that slaves had varying treatments depending on location, but the helots did have it as bad as the black slaves. This article puts it in detail quite well.

In Sparta, yes. In Athens, no. Broadly speaking.

It's easy for us to say that black slavery is unique in this issue because we, unlike the ancient world, actually documented our treatment of slaves. It'd be a far stretch to argue, though, that ancient female slaves did not feel as tortured or abused as black slaves in 1860, especially when they were raped multiple times by multiple men an the same day.

Pain is pain, torture is torture, enslavement is enslavement. This isn't a competition and shouldn't be treated as such, one people's suffering is not somehow diminished just because someone else experienced something different. To put this in perspective, if someone informs me of how they were raped, do I suddenly gain more sympathy or deserve more acknowledgement just because I was raped twice? Both victims deserve equal sympathy and compassion, one does not 'win' over the other just because their experience in suffering varies slightly.

Certainly not. But that's not what I'm saying. To use your analogy, there is a difference between a woman who was raped once, and a woman who was sold into sexual slavery. Both are absolutely victims and deserve sympathy. But their experiences were clearly different.

Eh, not really. You were the one that said black slavery was worse than any other slavery. I used it as an example of how black slavery suffering is no different than a vast majority of slaves throughout history, using female slave suffering as an example.

Not worse. Unique in scale and effect.

Me either, you were the one saying black slaves had it worse than other slaves. Yes they had differences, but at the end of the day both suffered from slavery. I feel the same about the Jewish holocaust and how people fail to mention that 6 million of us Poles (including 3 million Christians) were murdered during WWII. It's ridiculous that one group of people's pain gets recognition while other's gets completely forgotten. The most frustrating part is that people act as if one group is the first and only to experience such things.

Not worse. Unique in scale and effect. As for the Holocaust, for whatever reason, the Jews make for a more compelling story. I don't have an answer for you there.

Do you know how frustrating it is to be told that you are to be held accountable for something you had no part of, while at the same time you're being denied your own suffering? Why is my Irish/Polish/Italian suffering any less than a blacks? What makes Irish and Italian lynchings any less atrocious? What makes the millions of Poles deaths any less meaningful than the black deaths during the Atlantic slave trade? Why is the torture of slaves any different than a women being violently raped by random men more than once a day?

In the US? Because Irish and Italians came over in large numbers in the 1800s and were assimilated into mainstream American culture relatively quickly. Yeah, they had it tough for a long time, but they didn't have to deal with 300 years of slavery and then 100 years of Jim Crow. Again, that's not a value judgment about "better" or "worse," that's an objective difference in scale and effect.

I can tell you why politicians and public education convince black slavery was unique or 'worse' than any other, it's because it fits an agenda. Now, I won't go into detail about what this agenda is because I'm sure there's no one interested.

Ridiculous conspiracy theories are fun, but annoying.

I just wish people would stop trying to play this victim game. "My black eye is darker than your black eye"... my God, it's infuriating. In a way, I can't help but notice it's a little ironic that I have to bring up other racial suffering in a discussion about why black slavery shouldn't be treated differently than any other slavery, but, I play the cards I'm dealt.

On a global scale, you're probably right. But in the US, the black experience is unique to our culture, and has played a huge role in shaping the course of our nation. African chattel slavery is inextricably linked to our politics, our music, our literature, our architecture, and to the very fiber of our nation. It takes a pretty good set of blinders to be unable to acknowledge that.

Of course not, but you're the one saying one type of slavery is less painful than another, not me. What it does do, however, is show that the world only cares for certain types of slavery because it fits certain agendas, and while they're going on about how evil slavery was they're conveniently ignoring or downplaying other slaves throughout history. Which, in my honest opinion, gives off the impression that the speaker cares less about slavery being wrong and more about just getting this whole thing over with already.

It matters, Jesse, because you were the one that said black slavery deserves more acknowledgment than any other slavery when pressed about why 'white slaves' are forgotten. You said those things as a defense for why black slaves are remembered but Irish slaves are completely erased in history books. So obviously popular consensus is what drives this whole thing.

300,000 compared to 3 million and isolated events (relatively speaking) compared to 400+ years of entrenched culture is what creates the difference.

My thoughts are this, a slave is a slave. While each may carry their own experiences in pain and suffering as a slave, both deserve sympathy and acknowledgment for their ordeals, but neither deserve more recognition just because of numbers or severity. If one speaks against one account of slavery, they shouldn't downplay any other account of slavery, either.

And you can do that while still acknowledging that one group of people's servitude had a markedly different effect than another's.