The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion. These new mulatto slaves brought a higher price than Irish livestock and, likewise, enabled the settlers to save money rather than purchase new African slaves.
I often hear that Black Americans have lighter skin than Africans because some of their ancestors are white, and those ancestors were white slave-owning men who raped their female slaves.
Could it actually be the case that some -- or most -- of this white ancestry is due to the above paragraph?
I believe you are right Rex. Sounds like the white slave owning men raping the africans is a cover story to gin up all the anger and resentment we keep seeing. The real story is just as heinous, but certainly places a different light on it.
Yes, and quite a bit of what you have been told as truth is outright fabrication.
Just ask yourself one question:
We are told that slaveowners viewed slaves as less than animals, that they prized their livestock higher than their slaves, that their dogs were treated and fed better.
If that were the case, and you were a distinguished gentleman landowner, would you ever have the desire to bring one to your bed?
If that were the case, and you were a distinguished gentleman landowner, would you ever have the desire to bring one to your bed?
I made that exact argument to a professor (female, but not a radical feminist) when in college, and the response was (as you might predict) that rape isn't about sexual desire, but about exercising power.
I don't know what rapists think exactly, but slavery necessitates an element of dehumanization, and rape might too. Muslims raping young white women is a way of exerting dominance over a foreign culture in the process of being conquered ("we rape your women, and you can do nothing about it, faggots"), and also an act of considering the female sub-human, and therefore subject of being defiled (children and women are the very groups every society should seek to protect the most).
So is it imaginable that slaves, which were considered cattle, were raped by some relatively rich men? [Btw, 40% of all slave owners were Jews, who were a tiny minority, and only 5% of all house holds owned any slaves in the US, they were quite expensive.] Yes, it's possible. But the same could be said that dehumanized people are not subject of being of rape either, given that it would be considered similar to sodomy. Also you'd create bastard offspring, which could lead to more trouble - it would still be your children, who'd live in slavery, and that might be an inacceptable idea to most people, especially to those who have considerations for maintaining some reputation - and slave owners were those who were rather wealthy.
Also consider that not all intercourse with slaves was automatically rape, even if the concept of consent would have to be stretched a lot.
I think it's plausible to assume that the biggest factor was indeed intentional white-black slave interbreeding. It would also explain the vast difference in average IQ between blacks in Africa and blacks in the US.
But why the hell do I read about this the first time? Wow...
I often hear that Black Americans have lighter skin than Africans because some of their ancestors are white, and those ancestors were white slave-owning men who raped their female slaves.
Could it actually be the case that some -- or most -- of this white ancestry is due to the above paragraph?
I've read that ~3/4 of black people actually have white lineage. It's believable when you look at the skin of a black american vs. one from Africa.
Lock up the liquor before they kill us all!
It’s too late, one of every corner! Run I say! Run!
You can still see red haired, freckled black people in Jamaica and Barbados today.
I believe you are right Rex. Sounds like the white slave owning men raping the africans is a cover story to gin up all the anger and resentment we keep seeing. The real story is just as heinous, but certainly places a different light on it.
Yes, and quite a bit of what you have been told as truth is outright fabrication.
Just ask yourself one question:
We are told that slaveowners viewed slaves as less than animals, that they prized their livestock higher than their slaves, that their dogs were treated and fed better.
If that were the case, and you were a distinguished gentleman landowner, would you ever have the desire to bring one to your bed?
It can't be both.
Both are possible obviously. You act as though one person owned them all. Different owners might treat their slaves differently...
?m ml
I made that exact argument to a professor (female, but not a radical feminist) when in college, and the response was (as you might predict) that rape isn't about sexual desire, but about exercising power.
Didn't make sense to me then or now.
I don't know what rapists think exactly, but slavery necessitates an element of dehumanization, and rape might too. Muslims raping young white women is a way of exerting dominance over a foreign culture in the process of being conquered ("we rape your women, and you can do nothing about it, faggots"), and also an act of considering the female sub-human, and therefore subject of being defiled (children and women are the very groups every society should seek to protect the most).
So is it imaginable that slaves, which were considered cattle, were raped by some relatively rich men? [Btw, 40% of all slave owners were Jews, who were a tiny minority, and only 5% of all house holds owned any slaves in the US, they were quite expensive.] Yes, it's possible. But the same could be said that dehumanized people are not subject of being of rape either, given that it would be considered similar to sodomy. Also you'd create bastard offspring, which could lead to more trouble - it would still be your children, who'd live in slavery, and that might be an inacceptable idea to most people, especially to those who have considerations for maintaining some reputation - and slave owners were those who were rather wealthy.
Also consider that not all intercourse with slaves was automatically rape, even if the concept of consent would have to be stretched a lot.
I think it's plausible to assume that the biggest factor was indeed intentional white-black slave interbreeding. It would also explain the vast difference in average IQ between blacks in Africa and blacks in the US.
But why the hell do I read about this the first time? Wow...
Rape is an exercise of power over humans. People don't fuck their cattle, they whip them and prod them.
That's the point.