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?
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?
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?
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