Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

23andMe DNA study traces the 'genetic consequences' of the trans-Atlantic slave trade

Evidence of some of the horrors of the trans-Atlantic slave trade can still be found in the DNA of African Americans today, according to new research.

Researchers from consumer genetics company 23andMe studied genetic data of more than 50,000 people and compared it to historical documentation of where people were taken from in Africa, and where they were enslaved in the Americas, said Steven Micheletti, a population geneticist at 23andMe and study co-author.

The genetic results largely matched the historical records, Micheletti said, noting that historians estimated 5.7 million people were taken from West Central Africa and his team found the strongest genetic connection between people in that region.

But researchers also found key differences that may shed light on the brutality of slavery and how it operated different in different regions, according to the study published on Thursday in the American Journal of Human Genetics.

Micheletti, for example, said he was surprised to learn that African Americans have a higher proportion of African ancestry than people of African descent in South America, even though many more enslaved people were sent to South America than the United States.

He said the potential explanation could be "two different horrible practices": In places like Brazil and Cuba, slave owners were more likely to let slaves die than worry about their health, while in the U.S., they would "essentially breed people" to maintain the enslaved workforce.

Genetic data also shows that enslaved women contributed to the present-day gene pools at a higher rate, despite the fact that more than 60% of the enslaved people who were brought to the Americas were male. In the U.S., African women contributed to the gene pool about 1.5 times more than African men. In Central America, the Latin Caribbean and parts of South America enslaved women contributed to the gene pool about 13 to 17 times more.

The biases in the gene pool toward enslaved African women and European men can be attributed to the well-documented generations of rape and sexual exploitation against enslaved women by slave owners, study authors wrote, but the significant differences between the U.S. and Latin America was a surprise.

Micheletti explained that higher mortality rates among enslaved men and racial whitening policies in Latin America are potential explanations for the discrepency. In the U.S., slave owners promoted segregation in addition to coercing enslaved people to have children.

Far more people in the U.S. and Latin American had Nigerian ancestry than expected based on historical records. This discrepancy is the result of the intercolonial slave trade that occurred between the British Caribbean and other parts of the United States between 1619 and 1807 "presumably to maintain the slave economy as transatlantic slave trading was increasingly prohibited," the authors wrote.

"These voyages would spread African ancestry common in the British Caribbean to other regions of the Americas that were not in direct trade with specific regions of Africa," according to the study.

While Nigerian ancestry was over represented, ancestry from the region of Senegal and Gambia, one of the first African regions from which people were enslaved, is underrepresented, according to the study. Study authors suggest that over time, more and more children from the region were enslaved and that pattern combined with unsanitary conditions led to lower rates of survival.

It's also possible that Senegambians died more often because they were taken to dangerous rice plantations which were generally rampant with malaria.

Micheletti said he hopes to explore these hypotheses for the discrepancies more deeply.

"We offer a lot of these potential explanations but we need to go and physically test those explanations," he said. "We’d also like to kind of shape results and put them into a more personal context for 23andMe customers."

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 7207/31/2020

Really fascinating. I have to get my dna analyzed. I always wondered what part of Africa my ancestors came from

by Anonymousreply 107/29/2020

Don't all those companies monetize your DNA for research and voluntarily hand it over to law enforcement agencies as well?

by Anonymousreply 207/29/2020

This really was a fascinating study.

I'd love to see this done more in-depth.

by Anonymousreply 307/29/2020

The whites parked the ships on the coast and the blacks brought other blacks to them.

by Anonymousreply 407/29/2020

Now we’re doing trans and slavery, will the madness never end?

by Anonymousreply 507/29/2020

R5 A real knee slapper

by Anonymousreply 607/29/2020

African slave owners were selling their own slaves or countrymen to Americans and South Americans. Gambia was a British colony.The slaves didn't dash down to the docks and ask slave traders to buy them. They were forcefully rounded up, shackled and taken off to be sold.

by Anonymousreply 707/29/2020

"In places like Brazil and Cuba, slave owners were more likely to let slaves die than worry about their health, while in the U.S., they would "essentially breed people" to maintain the enslaved workforce. "

The trans-Atlantic slave trade was shut down in the North Atlantic long before slavery ended in the US, largely due to pressure from Abolitionists and the civilized nations of Europe. So the 19th century slave owners had to make sure their slaves bred and kept breeding if they wanted to maintain an unpaid work force, and I suppose it kept the price of slaves high enough that it might have kept the price of slaves higher than it was in South America. If slaves cost a lot of money, maybe they'd have gotten enough primitive medical care to keep them from dying while there was still work left in them!

Slavery in Brazil was abolished in 1888, later than in the US, but apparently they managed it without a war.

by Anonymousreply 807/29/2020

You've told that story about 500 times already, R7. Does it make you feel better? You're really sad.

R8, I believe that Brazil was the last place in the Western Hemisphere to abolish slavery.

I'm guessing that there was no civil war because Brazil was under the Portugese monarchy at the time. They had no choice.

by Anonymousreply 907/29/2020

What story makes you "feel better" to repeat, R9? The misconceptions need to be cleared up.

by Anonymousreply 1007/29/2020

R4 R7 The Trans Atlantic Slave Trade began with coastal raids and kidnappings by Europeans and The Portuguese on the coasts of Africa and through invasion attempts into the interior of Angola. Later, as the European demand increased, they relied primarily on local leaders and other collaborators from the interior of Africa for their steady supply of slaves. Europeans invaded and enslaved the indigenous population of the Canary Islands for sugar production in the 1400's without any help from interior Africans.

These out of context blurbs about African slave traders are most frequently deployed as an effort to shift the blame for chattel slavery onto Africans and to sanitize Europe's part in driving the market and to suggest these early raids and kidnappings were non existent.

by Anonymousreply 1107/29/2020

R4 and R5 are proof that the anti-transers are also the racists on here. They always show up to these threads to say "but the BLACKS were the REAL slavers." Always. You can set your watch to it.

by Anonymousreply 1207/29/2020

You nailed it, R11.

Also, no one forced them to inflict hundreds of years of brutality on slaves, after they left Africa.

by Anonymousreply 1307/29/2020

R2 you don’t have to give them your real name or ID. You can use whatever name you’d like

by Anonymousreply 1407/29/2020

Ok, I’ll bite.

[quote] The Trans Atlantic Slave Trade began with coastal raids and kidnappings by Europeans and The Portuguese on the coasts of Africa and through invasion attempts into the interior of Angola.

Isn’t Portugal part of Europe?

by Anonymousreply 1507/29/2020

R15 Yes, it should properly read Portugal (and other European Kingdoms) to indicate they were foremost in the international slave trade for a time and were the first Europeans to lead raids off the coast of Africa

by Anonymousreply 1607/29/2020

[quote] Don't all those companies monetize your DNA for research and voluntarily hand it over to law enforcement agencies as well?

[quote] you don’t have to give them your real name or ID. You can use whatever name you’d like

I actually believe that they are using peoples' DNA for research and cloning.

Once you sign your release, they can do whatever they want with your genetic material.

by Anonymousreply 1707/29/2020

Yeah, I know. But if you really want to punch your points, you don’t surround them in mounds of unrelated fluff.

Even if you thought those facts were relevant, you could have done that in one short paragraph.

If you just like to hear yourself talk, congratulations. Job well done.

by Anonymousreply 1807/29/2020

R18 Sorry, should I just have spouted one or two sentences of propaganda about black on black crime in the international slave trade? Eff off, it's clear your gripe is not my conciseness.

by Anonymousreply 1907/29/2020

This thread won't end well

by Anonymousreply 2007/29/2020

Its fate was decided the moment it was posted this being Datalounge and all

by Anonymousreply 2107/29/2020

Interesting, but they're really just hypothesizing about the causes and potential explanations.

And more pointedly, they specifically stopped at figuring the impact of Africans selling other Africans to the Atlantic slave trade, as slavery was also a part of conquered tribes.

by Anonymousreply 2207/29/2020

R17 for certain research yes, that’s what they write in their terms and conditions but if they want to do different research then they have to ask permission again. Cloning wasn’t mentioned. Even if they did.....as long as they don’t harm me lol. Your DNA will only be saved for 10 years.

by Anonymousreply 2307/29/2020

R20

Yes, it won't end well.

Either grease fire, tears or cloning...

by Anonymousreply 2407/29/2020

No, R19. It was exactly about conciseness. When you start showboating like that, your point gets lost. Sure, I was an ass about it. But so what? I happen to agree with you.

by Anonymousreply 2507/29/2020

I think the title is relatively misleading. It's not surprising to anyone that there were different treatments of slaves in North vs South America.

Let's think of the black populations of Central and South America. Brazil has the most variations on skin shades - but where are the black populations?

It's no secret or discovery that there was a lot of female slave rape - and in South America, intermarriage.

There are enough documents to show that a lot of South American slavery was based on replacement - i.e. working slaves to death and buying new ones.

Outside of the Senegambalese component - I don't see anything newsworthy in this article.

by Anonymousreply 2607/29/2020

[quote] The whites parked the ships on the coast and the blacks brought other blacks to them.

I have never understood the point of this argument. The fact that some Africans sold other Africans to whites slave traders doesn't negate the fact that they only did this because white slave traders were buying. If no one was buying no one would be selling.

The fact that someone was selling slaves, does not absolve people from the evil of buying slaves, working them to the death, raping them and beating them, then even after being forced to give them freedom denying them equal rights.

by Anonymousreply 2707/29/2020

We need to center trans women of color in this discussion, otherwise it is literal violence.

by Anonymousreply 2807/29/2020

Stay in yo lane, white folx

by Anonymousreply 2907/29/2020

R27, It's not an argument, it's a bumper sticker with a confederate flag.

by Anonymousreply 3007/29/2020

R27 - no, they didn't only do this because white people were buying. The trade existed before white people got into it.

The problem people have is framing the whole argument as 'white people are bad' and that they started the whole thing. No they did not. And slavery existed widely in the Muslim world, in Asian countries and elsewhere.

Many African countries still had slavery in the 20th century! So the pushback is to blaming white people for the entire West African slavery exportation. There were a lot of actors, white purchasers being one of them - but they didn't start or create the market. And the whites were not running into the countryside capturing slaves like depicted in Roots.

by Anonymousreply 3107/29/2020

I don't get what's wrong with studying and being honest about African involvement in the slave trade as well as European involvement in it or with studying the Arabic trade in African slaves, if we actually want a knowledge of the historical past. Saying only one aspect of slavery should be studied and discussed and other aspects minimised or overlooked or attempts made to explain them away is just following a political agenda.

by Anonymousreply 3207/29/2020

R31 here - in my mind, there are 2 separate issues - the slave trade in North and South American colonies, and the treatment of freed people in the US after 1865.

The latter is clear-cut: white Americans were (and many still are) fucking awful and reprehensible in their treatment of black people. You can't really defend anything that happened. The blame is squarely on their shoulders.

However, the slave trade and its history is more complicated.

by Anonymousreply 3307/29/2020

Thank you, R27.

R31/R32 is exhausting. Not worth the trouble, because that person's agenda is pretty clear.

by Anonymousreply 3407/29/2020

agree with R33, what happened after slavery was a nightmare and completely reprehensible in a country built on freedom.

by Anonymousreply 3507/29/2020

I keep hearing that the chattel Slave Trade is alive and well within Africa, that although the trans-Atlantic slave trade was stopped over a century ago, African slavery never really went away. I don't know how much of what I read in the few articles that slip out is true, this is not a trade that involves a lot of westerners or that's of real interest to the corporate media, and I suppose we'd all better be grateful that the corporate world is ignoring chattel slavery instead of participating in it.

Of course, everyone knows about slavery in the modern Middle East, Dubai being built by slave labor and so on. Or everyone should, the information is widely available.

by Anonymousreply 3607/29/2020

R31, you pretty much missed the point. Slaves were brought to the US because people in the US were buying, slaves were not taken to say Sweden, Poland or Russia even though there were Africans selling other Africans and had been for years because no one in Sweden, Poland or Russia were buying. No one should justify the enslavement and selling of another human being just because it was happening somewhere else and that is what you are doing.

Yes there was slavery in Africa, but slavery went on steroids when the buying of slaves started in the Western Hemisphere. The majority of white Americans were not slave owners or traders, but way too many people allowed it to exist for way too long and even after slavery ended, the treatment of former slaves was horrendous, even into much of the 20th century and even today.

[quote] The problem people have is framing the whole argument as 'white people are bad' and that they started the whole thing.

Isn't the point you are making is 'black people are bad' because they were doing it first? What I am saying is slave trading was bad, didn't matter if they were black or white, but you seem to want to absolve the role white people played and it was a huge one, because black people were selling slaves. Anyone involved in the selling, buying or owning of slaves was a bad person. I don't get why you want to defend the role anyone played in this, just because it was already happening.

by Anonymousreply 3707/29/2020

What about modern day black slavers in the ghettos? That have their own communities enslaved to drugs and the horrors that go with it.

Yes the African slave trade was horrific and has left a legacy of a broken people and cannot be excused or whitewashed and the institutionalized violence in the US against blacks has to be eradicated. Once there, how does society deal with black on black violence in its multiple manifestations?

by Anonymousreply 3807/29/2020

Really R38, white people aren't enslaved to drugs? 2018 data shows that every day, 128 people in the United States died after overdosing on opioids and a whole lot of those people were white. You want to blame the entire black community for black on black violence. Blacks are the primary victim of black on black violence, maybe we should stop blaming and work for solutions, I have never seen blaming someone for their own problems lead to a solution.

by Anonymousreply 3907/29/2020

R37, I'm not the guy who keeps bringing up "Africans participated in the slave trade", but if that is mentioned the point out to be not that black people are bad, but that ALL people are capable of being bad. Every person on Earth is probably descended from slaves and/or slave owners, because many societies on every continent have had slavery in some form. Ancient Greece and Rome had slaves all over their city-states and Empire, China had girl slavery for thousands of years, intra-African slavery existed and reportedly still exists, the slave trade in the Indian Ocean persisted into the 20th century, and of course North and South America had the forms of large-scale chattel slavery we've discussed.

So really, the people today saying that white people are the only ones who should feel guilty for the actions of their slave-owning ancestors is a bit... simplistic.

I'm white and while I'm pretty sure that none of my American ancestors owned slaves as they all immigrated after the Civil War was over... there's no way in hell my Viking ancestors didn't have slaves. Should I feel guilty about that? Should black people feel guilty because their African ancestors may have owned slaves? Should Chinese people feel guilty because their ancestors may have bought and sold their daughters? How about nobody feel guilty for the acts of their ancestors or blame anyone else for the same, because we're not responsible for what people did before we were born.

by Anonymousreply 4007/29/2020

R40 Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

by Anonymousreply 4107/29/2020

[quote]Yes there was slavery in Africa, but slavery went on steroids when the buying of slaves started in the Western Hemisphere.

The Arab/Muslim Slave Trade existed for centuries before the slave trade to the Americas and involved millions more enslaved people, including both black Africans and white Europeans.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 4207/29/2020

R40 250 years of slavery. 90 years of Jim Crow. Vagrancy laws and the reenslavement of the African American. 60 years of separate but equal. 35 years of racist housing policy. Crack/Cocaine. Predatory housing loans. Extrajudicial Police Killings and disproportionate police violence continuing to this day.

All these things are related. All stem from the injustice of chattel slavery in our current society. Your post is a complete nullification of these things and an endorsement of perpetuating cycles of slavery and genocide.

by Anonymousreply 4307/29/2020

No, R40, my post doesn't address any of the injustices done to black people other than slavery, the only thing it's trying to nullify is the idea that only white people should feel guilty for the actions of their slave-owning ancestors.

Or that anyone should be made to feel guilty for the actions of their ancestors, we just aren't responsible for what people did before we were born.

by Anonymousreply 4407/29/2020

Shit, I meant to address that to R43, not myself.

by Anonymousreply 4507/29/2020

My only question to blacks is: would you rather be starving in Africa, living in a shit hut with Ebola, West Nile Virus, AIDS... and getting attacked by marauders?

Your 'reparations' are that your great-great-great grandma was a slave and bestowed you with light skin courtesy of Massa.

Now. Move. On.

by Anonymousreply 4607/29/2020

[quote] No one should justify the enslavement and selling of another human being just because it was happening

Exactly!

Guns are sold on the market. Drugs are sold on the market. Exotic animals and their body parts are sold on the market. And other evil things that we might not even know about, are being sold on the market.

But do people participate in these activities? NO. Because they are reprehensible and they are condemned by a civil society. THAT is the point.

Anyone who tries to excuse it or justify it today, would probably have backed the Confederacy during the Civil War. They were immoral people, who placed no value on human life, or any other life for that matter.

[quote] 250 years of slavery. 90 years of Jim Crow. Vagrancy laws and the reenslavement of the African American. 60 years of separate but equal. 35 years of racist housing policy. Crack/Cocaine. Predatory housing loans. Extrajudicial Police Killings and disproportionate police violence continuing to this day.

When people ask what BLM and all these other protests are about, this is it in a nutshell.

Thank you for summarizing it so succinctly, R43.

by Anonymousreply 4707/29/2020

R31 and r32 are two different posters r34 - which is obvious even without reading r33. As r33 (who is also r31 points out), black people were treated like shit in the USA (in certain parts of it at least) after emancipation, which is less the case in other countries where there was slavery. Also, slavery in the US was reproduced within the US, with generations of slaves giving birth to the next generation of slaves, for centuries. While a country like the UK may have been involved in the slave trade for a period and had a system of slavery in some of its colonies and territories, there was little African slavery within the actual country. The same is true for countries like Spain and Portugal.

The US experience of African slavery and its aftermath is fairly unique and horrific enough - it doesn't need to be made to sound worse than it is by distorting the historical origins of the transatlantic slave trade and reducing a complex situation to "white Europeans raided Africa, captured its people and put them on the ships".

by Anonymousreply 4807/30/2020

This article basically admitted that heterosexuality and slavery go hand-in-hand.

by Anonymousreply 4907/30/2020

Homosexuals can’t procreate so of course there would be no evidence of homosexuality ancestral DNA research

by Anonymousreply 5007/30/2020

[quote] Homosexuals can’t procreate

Gay men aren't sterile.

by Anonymousreply 5107/30/2020

No of course not but DNA research will not show if there was any homosexual abuse a few hundred years ago. It doesn’t meant there wasn’t any abuse

by Anonymousreply 5207/30/2020

The point r31 was making is a good one. He's just saying that the oversimplified "white people are bad" racism that is used in place of actual conversation is counterproductive. It is incredibly racist and I honestly do not understand how that is seen as okay in a society that purports to value people on their individual merits.

My mom did pretty well using guilt as a weapon, too, until I got old enough to see that it was a manipulative tactic she wielded and I figured out how to push back.

I don't think it's useful - the fact that you can't browse Twitter without seeing a "sounds about white"-style joke ("Karens" are another shorthand for this that manage to be both racist AND misogynistic) and it's entered into the American consciousness that it's somehow acceptable to segment and label people by their race - but only if they're white - is not the way to make lasting change.

by Anonymousreply 5307/30/2020

The article mentions the prevalence of rape in the American South for diversifying and elevating female African DNA over male DNA. How much is known about the motivation for that? Was it primarily the Master’s domain or were the foreman encouraged to do it? Was there discussion between the two of them in using it as a tool of dominance and humiliation and systematically meted such as at the arrival of a new female slave it was automatically done to break them or show dominance to their partner if they came with one? Or upon an already owned female slave when she reached a certain age or maturity level such as having their first period? Did they almost see it as another type of “husbandry” on the farm for increasing numbers and profit?

Was some of it based on actual desire? Was it seen as a type of fetishism? Did men of power openly discuss it amongst themselves and brag and compare conquests? Or was it the dirty little secret that everyone knew about, but didn’t discuss openly? Were Southern white woman complicit? Is there any historical truth to that image of the master sleeping with the female slave on the wedding night if she was getting married since marriages were not really a legal thing?

by Anonymousreply 5407/30/2020

R54 you seem to be looking for one specific reason. There wasn't one. People are complex, some likely had it as a fetish and did it for fun, some because they thought it would increase profits, some did it to humiliate their married wives and keep THEM in place - there's a LOT of social dynamics around it, and none that can be easily condensed info a soundbite or a relatively short article.

People study history and human behavior because it's not a subject you can readily understand with a summary. Part of the issue I have with the current conversation and obsession with race is that it oversimplifies things to the extreme.

by Anonymousreply 5507/30/2020

Interesting. When you sequence your DNA and if you did it for a lot of Black people you'd find many have some European DNA too. There is some history that indicates some of the founding fathers had a taste for darker skin.

by Anonymousreply 5607/30/2020

R55 I agree with everything you said, but there remains the fact that it was more prevalent there then in the Caribbean, South America, Central America or in the Northern United States. There must be reasons for that anomaly? Something systemic and a cognitive choice in the matter, so what motivated it?

by Anonymousreply 5707/30/2020

British colonialist attitude?

by Anonymousreply 5807/30/2020

Slavery is evil. I don't think there's any nationality or race that can lay claim to it as an exclusive trait.

Colonialism and conquest drove it and until we understand what's truly behind both of these impulses, it will continue to resonate. It's particularly galling for anyone to excuse it by trying to deflect blame on one race or another, but the whole of the truth of slavery within our history is something we have to face in order to rid ourselves of it - and its legacy - once and for all. White people enslaved white people, black people enslaved black people....there is truth in ALL of it.

Tracing out the tragedy in the Americas is fascinating from a biological perspective and this article draws some heavy conclusions around the results. Reconciling our history with slavery to our aspirations of freedom and justice under our Constitution is the real challenge. I hope we get the time on this increasingly endangered planet to figure it out and go forward without the 'need' for slavery.

by Anonymousreply 5907/30/2020

Genetic consequences?

Used whispers at the prevalence of the tar brush.

Ah deCLARE.

by Anonymousreply 6007/30/2020

I see nothing being accomplished by indulging the need to blame and beat each other up about slavery and who did what to whom. Past history, ancient history, stone age? Where do we begin or end with the blame around this?

BLM has become, for me, a catalyst for the courage to face some painful inner truths. If I really focus on the message, it forces me to confront the legacy of slavery in this country and in my own life. I have to look at those times when I judged and judge others as lesser than me and the evil of wanting more than I need. These were the motivations given free rein in a world discovering itself all those years ago. This is the source of slavery.

I asked myself, if it were legal and I could afford it, would I buy a slave? What would be my thinking around it in a world that allowed it? What did President Grant feel during those years when he owned a human being as a gift from his FIL? Hard questions I've asked and though it would seem the answers are simple - NO, I would not own a slave, then or now - yet in the context of the times he lived, a man who fought and ordered men to die on battlefields to end it owned another human being at one time in his life. I believe this was part of his motivation and what gave him real strength when those fields were soaked with the blood of those willing to die to end it. He knew how easy it was to just go along with evil. He knew it would take real courage and conviction to defeat it.

The only things we should be saying now are NEVER AGAIN, and making sure we mean it this time by taking the words and actions of those men and women, everywhere, who fought against slavery and oppression in ALL of its forms - Douglass, O'Connell, King, Gandhi, Tubman - to name but a scant few

We, as a nation, are confronting these evils together, but it does no good and the cure will not take until we confront these things within ourselves.

by Anonymousreply 6107/30/2020

Also doesn’t the DNA research show that hardly any of us is purely white, black, Native American, Asian etc? Maybe we should not focus on the differences so much. Accept the past and do it differently now.

by Anonymousreply 6207/30/2020

Hippie as it may sound I think we can do so much better. We are not going to convince anyone but we can try and lead by example.

by Anonymousreply 6307/30/2020

Did the Holocaust leave any traces?

by Anonymousreply 6407/30/2020

[quote] How much is known about the motivation for that? Was it primarily the Master’s domain or were the foreman encouraged to do it? Was there discussion between the two of them in using it as a tool of dominance and humiliation and systematically meted such as at the arrival of a new female slave it was automatically done to break them or show dominance to their partner if they came with one? Or upon an already owned female slave when she reached a certain age or maturity level such as having their first period? Did they almost see it as another type of “husbandry” on the farm for increasing numbers and profit?

[quote] Was some of it based on actual desire? Was it seen as a type of fetishism? Did men of power openly discuss it amongst themselves and brag and compare conquests? Or was it the dirty little secret that everyone knew about, but didn’t discuss openly? Were Southern white woman complicit?

Probably all of this, just done by different people.

But underlying all of this was power, control, and an inherent belief in the superiority of being white, over being black.

Never forget that some people even believe/believed that it was almost a divine right for white people to "own" black people. And they actually used religion to justify it. Some still do.

[quote] Is there any historical truth to that image of the master sleeping with the female slave on the wedding night if she was getting married since marriages were not really a legal thing?

I'm sure this was carried over from Britain.

It made me think of the movie "Braveheart" and "Prima Nocta" or the right of the monarch (or his lords) to have sex with ANY female subject, especially on her wedding night.

No doubt this tradition was kept in mind, when dealing with slaves.

by Anonymousreply 6507/30/2020

R61 your post is overblown and exhausting.

by Anonymousreply 6607/30/2020

R54, historians will never be able to study and analyze the motives of men who raped female slaves, because none of those men wrote about it. That was as "moral" as the pretentious wannabe-aristocrats of the South got, they felt free to rape helpless women, they just didn't talk about it in public or write about it in their memoirs.

There were oral histories taken down in the early 20th century, slaves were allowed to tell their stories. But does anyone know if any former slaves were asked to talk about their experience of rape? The histories would have been recorded in a prudish time, when things like rape, the sexual abuse of children, or the sexual violation of men was simply not talked about, but it all had to have happened.

by Anonymousreply 6707/30/2020

Do you think that there were any gay slave holders?

by Anonymousreply 6807/31/2020

One of the stories in "Roots", was how one of the author's distant female ancestors was young when she was bought but a poor bachelor dirt farmer who lived in a cabin out in the woods. He raped her repeatedly, he fathered children on her, and got several slaves for the price of one. I forget what he did with his own children by the poor gal, probably sold them (shudder).

This was common in ancient Rome, a bachelor who didn't want to do his own cooking and cleaning would buy a female slave, rape her, be the father of her children, sometimes marry her or "adopt" his own children. You didn't hire domestic servants in those days, you bought them.

by Anonymousreply 6907/31/2020

[quote] Once you sign your release, they can do whatever they want with your genetic material.

The tests are done with a vial of spit. Do you believe they can clone someone with that?

by Anonymousreply 7007/31/2020

[quote] One of the stories in "Roots", was how one of the author's distant female ancestors was young when she was bought but a poor bachelor dirt farmer who lived in a cabin out in the woods. He raped her repeatedly, he fathered children on her, and got several slaves for the price of one

I think the characters were Kizzy (Kunta Kinte's daughter) and Tom Lea, a plantation owner.

Tom took Kizzy away from her parents and then had sex with her. One of their children was "Chicken George," who Tom Lea actually liked.

In one version of Roots, Tom Lea was played by Jonathan Rhys-Meyers.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 7107/31/2020

To assholes like R4 and R5: WTF did the white slavers go to Africa in the first place? Why take that very long trip except to rape and pillage. You think they went to buy a fucking condo?

by Anonymousreply 7207/31/2020
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Don't you just LOVE clicking on these things on every single site you visit? I know we do! You can thank the EU parliament for making everyone in the world click on these pointless things while changing absolutely nothing. If you are interested you can take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT and we'll set a dreaded cookie to make it go away. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!